PRAMASAGARA @ C.J. DRUVASAGARA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

504 and 506 of I.P.C and the FIR came to be registered in Crime No.299/2015 of Maddur Police Station.

3. During investigation, the mahazar is said to have been conducted in the house of accused No.1 and - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:40528 WP No. 15412 of 2020 several blank On-demand Promissory notes and other documents were seized. Statements of several witnesses were recorded and the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C, Sections 5 and 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004.

4. As per the charge sheet, it is the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner being the son of accused No.1 is carrying out money lending business without obtaining license and he has also committed offences as stated above along with accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

5. Heard Sri.Vinay D.Hosmath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader respondent No.1 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:40528 WP No. 15412 of 2020 Sri.K.Ananda, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material placed on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 in FIR which came to be registered against him. Initially FIR was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. Only at the time of filing the charge sheet, it was filed against the petitioner arraigning him as accused No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a private complaint is filed against respondent No.2 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The trial Court took cognizance of the said offence and C.C.No.1957/2014 is registered. The same is pending against respondent No.2. As a counter blast, the charge sheet came to be filed against the present petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court in W.P.No.32009/2015 and W.P.No.32955/2015 and both these petitions came to be allowed by a common order - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:40528 WP No. 15412 of 2020 dated 16.01.2019. Under such circumstances, petitioner being the co-accused is also entitled for the benefit of the same. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.

8. Per contra learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposing the petition submitted that respondent No.2 filed a complaint making specific allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 and all other family members including the petitioner in the FIR. However, the FIR came to be registered only against accused Nos.1 and 2, who are none other than mother and maternal uncle of the petitioner. During the investigation, the statement of several witnesses were recorded, where they have stated that this petitioner who was running money lending business is charging exorbitant rate of interest. During mahazar, several blank On-demand Promissory notes were seized the house of accused No.1 where the petitioner is staying. Under such - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:40528 WP No. 15412 of 2020 circumstances, there are strong material to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 and therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner as a complainant is prosecuting C.C.No.1957/2014 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act. When admittedly, the petitioner has filed a private complaint contending that he has lent money to the complainant, the materials that are collected by the Investigating Officer in the present case throw much light regarding commission of offence by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, quashing of criminal proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 2 will not have bearing in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the petition. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:40528 WP No. 15412 of 2020

10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?”

11. My answer to the above point is 'Partly in the Affirmative' for the following: REASONS

12. Initially, respondent No.2 filed FIR against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of I.P.C, Sections 5 and 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. Admittedly, the criminal proceedings initiated against accused Nos.1 and 2 came to be quashed by allowing the writ petitions filed by W.P.No.32009/2015 and W.P.No.32955/2015 vide order - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:40528 WP No. 15412 of 2020 dated 16.01.2019. It is noticed that in the FIR there was specific allegations for having committed offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 I.P.C. only against accused Nos.1 and 2 and not against the present petitioner. Under such circumstances, I find no reasons to prosecute the present petitioner for the said offences when initially there was no such allegations against the petitioner and accordingly, the same is liable to be quashed.

13. The FIR also came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004. Admittedly, the petitioner has filed private complaint before the trial Court against respondent No.2 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and the matter is pending now C.C.No.1957/2014. Even though FIR was came to be registered against accused Nos. 1 and 2, during - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:40528 WP No. 15412 of 2020 investigation, mahazar was held in the house of accused No.1, who is the mother of present petitioner. It is stated that, 4 blank On-demand Promissory notes, one old diary containing the writings in several pages were recovered. It is the allegations made by respondent No.2 that the accused are carrying money lending business without license and also charging exorbitant rate of interest.

14. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced the copy of the deposition of the petitioner in C.C.No.1957/2014, wherein during cross-examination, the petitioner has specifically stated that for the purpose of lending the amount, he has not obtained any license. However, these materials will have cumulative effect on the criminal proceedings registered against the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 5 and 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act,

2004. In the criminal case under Section 138 of N.I. Act the Court may not go in the contentions of the parties as - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:40528 WP No. 15412 of 2020 to whether the petitioner is carrying on money lending business without license and whether he is guilty of such offence special enactments. Under circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of Sections 5 and 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 are not liable to be quashed against the petitioner.

15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The First Information Report dated 12.12.2016 (Annexure-D) in Cr.No.299/2015 of Maddur Police Station, Bengaluru, pending in C.C.No.618/2017, on the file of Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Maddur only for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506, is hereby quashed. - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:40528 WP No. 15412 of 2020 The prayer to quash the criminal proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 5 and 39 of Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004, is rejected. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11