Karnataka High Court
M/S Yashaswi Fish Meal & Oil Company vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2024
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24218
CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1542 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. M/S YASHASWI FISH MEAL & OIL COMPANY,
PITHRODY, UDYAVARA VILLAGE,
UDUPI, KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI SADHU SALIAN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.A.ARIGA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KAPU POLICE STATION,
KAPU, UDUPI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
Digitally STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
signed by
KIRAN HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KUMAR R BANGALORE-560 001.
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI. RAMANAND PURANIK,
KARNATAKA
S/O B. RAMAKRISHNA PURANIK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
UDYAVARA GRAMAPANCHAYATH,
UDYAVARA, UDUPI-567 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. M.T.JAGAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24218
CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
FIR No.263/2017 DATED 05.12.2017 REGISTERED AGAINST
THIS PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-b, PENDING BEFORE THE II
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 07.06.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The records of this case indicate the following facts.
2. On 20.05.2011, a Resolution was passed by the Udyavara Gram Panchayat canceling the license granted to the petitioner for running Fish Meal Units. This was challenged by the petitioner along with similarly placed licensees, whose licenses were also cancelled, by filing a batch of Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos.26199-200/2011 and connected matters. All the petitions were clubbed together, and an order was passed on 20.10.2011.
3. On the basis of the submissions made by the Gram Panchayat, the matter was sent back to the Gram Panchayat with a direction to issue a fresh show-cause -3- NC: 2024:KHC:24218 CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018 notice to all the licensees to have their say in the matter, and the Panchayat was directed to take a decision on merits after considering all the relevant records, including the objections of the licensees.
4. The petitioner herein was the second petitioner in said batch of Writ Petitions in W.P. Nos.26199-200/2011 (the lead petition in the batch). Pursuant to said order, the Panchayat proceeded to renew the license on 14.12.2011.
5. Subsequently, the Panchayat passed a resolution on 03.01.2012 cancelling the license issued to the petitioner and also other similarly situated Units. The petitioner challenged said order by filing another writ petition in W.P. Nos.2665-66/2012, and this Court granted the petitioner an interim order on the basis of which he continued to run the Unit. This Writ Petition was then disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to apply for grant / renewal of the license within four weeks and, as a pre-condition, the petitioners were directed to remit the dues within two weeks from the date a demand notice was issued by the -4- NC: 2024:KHC:24218 CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018 Gram Panchayat / the competent Authority. This Court directed the Panchayat to consider the applications of the petitioners for grant of renewal of licenses within four weeks, and till the result of such consideration, the Panchayat was restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioners.
6. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, on 17.10.2017, the Gram Panchayat addressed a letter to the Kapu Police Station stating that the Panchayat did not have any record indicating that a license had been issued to the petitioner on 11.02.2014. It was stated that the receipt was not available and the sum of Rs.13,000/- said to have been remitted had actually not be remitted to the Panchayat.
7. It was stated that a copy of the license had been secured by three people, one of whom was a sitting member of the Gram Panchayat, the other was a former Gram Panchayat member, and the third was a citizen from the Mangalore Electricity Supply Company ("the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:24218 CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018 MESCOM"). It was also stated that this issue was considered by the Panchayat on 26.09.2017 and a decision was taken to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional Police bringing to its notice the fabrication of a license and prosecuting the concerned.
8. This complaint was subsequently followed up by another letter dated 05.12.2017, and apart from reiterating the contents of the letter dated 17.10.2017, it was also stated that the signature of the Panchayat Development Officer found on the license dated 11.02.2014 appeared to be that of one Sri.Panchakshara Swamy Kerimata, who was working at the Udyavara Gram Panchayat and said signatory was not working in the Gram Panchayat.
9. On the basis of this complaint that a license dated 11.02.2014 had been fabricated, the Police registered an FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. The petitioner, who is the recipient of the alleged license dated 11.02.2014, has -6- NC: 2024:KHC:24218 CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018 preferred the present petition challenging the registration of FIR and seeking quashing of the proceedings.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner--Sri. K.A. Ariga vociferously contended that the registration of FIR was illegal. He stated that the license had been granted to the petitioner pursuant to a resolution passed by the Panchayat on 05.03.2014 and placed reliance on Annexure-G, which, according to him, contained the resolution for grant of license in favour of the petitioner.
11. Learned counsel also submitted that the filing of the criminal case was a result of the vendetta of the Gram Panchayat members who were all along prosecuting the petitioner by initiating one proceeding or another, and, therefore, the impugned prosecution was malicious and deserved to be quashed.
12. Learned counsel also submitted that the complaint of the Panchayat indicated that the signature found on the license was that of said Sri.Panchakshara Swamy Kerimata -7- NC: 2024:KHC:24218 CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018 and since Sri.Panchakshara Swamy Kerimata had not lodged any complaint alleging that the signature was forged, and also since the MESCOM (to whom the license was alleged to have been submitted) also did not lodge any complaint, the registration of FIR on the basis of the complaint of the Gram Panchayat was illegal.
13. Learned counsel sought to place reliance on the following judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his contentions -
i. Deepak Gaba and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, AIR 2023 SC 228;
ii. Mahmood Ali and others v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2023 SC 3709;
iii. Ajeet Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 2024 SC 257;
iv. Vishwas Bhandari v. State of Punjab and another, AIR 2021 SC 828;
v. Patricia Mukhim v. State of Meghalaya and others, AIR 2021 SC 1632;
vi. N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI, AIR 2022 SC 826; and vii. Rekha Jain v. State of Karnataka and Another, AIR 2022 SC 2268.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:24218 CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018
14. The learned counsel for the respondent--Panchayat, per contra, contended that the petitioner had secured an increase in the sanctioned loan to his Unit on the basis of a fabricated license said to have been issued by the Panchayat, which was a serious crime and, therefore, the Panchayat was obliged to lodge a criminal complaint and the Police was thus justified in registering an FIR. He also submitted that, as a matter of fact, no meeting of the Panchayat itself had been conducted on 05.03.2014 and, therefore, reliance placed by the petitioner on an alleged resolution dated 05.03.2014 was without any basis. He further averred that the receipt number indicated in the license and the sum of Rs.13,000/- said to have been remitted, as stated in the license, were not actually remitted to the Panchayat and it was hence clear that the license was fabricated. It is on the basis of these arguments that the respondent counsel sought dismissal of this writ petition.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:24218 CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018
15. The basic complaint of the Panchayat was made on 17.10.2017 and followed up with another complaint dated 05.12.2017, both of which read as follows:
"GzÁåªÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¦vÉÆæÃrAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀiÁðZÀj¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ AiÀıÀ¹é ¦ü±ï«Ä¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D¬Ä¯ï PÀA¥É¤ EªÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:11-02-2014 gÀ G¢ÝªÉÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀvÀæ £ÀPÀ° ¸ÀȶֹgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ vÀ¤SÉ £Àqɹ vÀÀ¦àvÀ¸ÀÜgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀæªÀĪÀ»¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ G¯ÉèÃRzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä PÀbÉÃjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F §UÉÎ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀR£ÀÄß ªÉÄøÁÌA¤AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ. ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀðÀºÀPÀ EAf¤AiÀÄgï («) £ÀªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Á®£É G¥À«¨sÁUÀ ªÉĸÁÌA, ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀ, GqÀĦ EªÀgÀÄ vÀ¤SÉUÉ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À°è ¸À¢æ £ÀPÀ° G¢ÝªÉÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ §¼ÀPÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀPÀ®Ä ¤gÁPÉëÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸À»AiÀÄÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀqÀÄ©¢æ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï£À°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ²æÃ¥ÀAZÁPÀëj¸Áé«Ä PÉÃjªÀÄoÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¸À»UÉ ºÉÆðPÉÉ EzÉ. DzÀgÉ D CªÀ¢AiÀÄ°è CªÀgÄÀ GzÁåªÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï£À°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀ°®è. ¸ÀÆPÀÛ vÀ¤SÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ vÀ¦àvÀ¸ÀÜgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ. "
16. A reading of these complaints, on the basis of which the FIR was registered, would indicate that it was the allegation of the Panchayat that the license was fabricated for the purpose of securing electricity and this fabricated license was found in the records of MESCOM and obtained
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24218 CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018 by a member of the Panchayat and two others, and they had furnished a copy of it to the Panchayat, only after which did the Panchayat come to know about the fabrication.
17. It is, however, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it had not fabricated the license and fabrication cannot be inferred merely because a copy of the license was secured from MESCOM. It is the case of the petitioner that in the absence of a complaint by the MESCOM or by the alleged signatory of the license contending that the Certificate was fake and the signature was forged, the Police were not justified in initiating criminal proceedings.
18. It is to be stated here that the answer to the question -- whether the license was indeed fabricated and the signature found therein was forged -- can only be ascertained after a thorough investigation, and trial, if the investigation warrants it.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24218 CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018
19. The contentions advanced by the petitioner -- that there was a resolution passed on 05.03.2014 and the counter contention of the Panchayat that no such resolution was passed on 05.03.2014 -- are all matters which will have to be established during the course of the trial and these are factors which cannot be considered in a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
20. The reliance placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are of no avail since they have laid down only general principles, including the principle that the Court would have to look not only into the averments made in the complaint, but also the surrounding circumstances to establish whether the initiation or registration of a case was justified.
21. As narrated above, it is the case of the Panchayat that it had neither passed a resolution on said date, nor had it issued any license to the petitioner. The Panchayat also contends that the amount mentioned in the license and the receipt number indicated therein were not
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:24218 CRL.P No. 1542 of 2018 forthcoming in its records, and no amount was also disbursed into the account for this purpose.
22. In light of these facts, the Police would obviously be justified in registering an FIR and there is thus no infirmity in this regard. I find no ground to entertain the present petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
23. All the contentions of both parties are kept open to be adjudicated during the course of the trial.
Sd/-
JUDGE hnm