NIJAMUDDIN JAKATI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR ARISING OUT OF GOKAK TOWN P.S. CRIME NO.132/2021 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. CASE NO.87/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 420 R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/S 21(1)(2)(3) AND 23 OF BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA MANJANNA E MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad +0530 - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14855 CRL.P No. 103201 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The petitioner-accused no.4 is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in S.C. No. 87/2022 arising out of Crime No. 132/2021 for the offences punishable u/S 406, 420 r/w Sec. 149 of IPC and u/S 21(1)(2)(3) and 23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that qua accused no.1 this Court in Crl. P. No. 102543/2023 dated

05.10.2023 has observed as follows and allowed the petition:

“The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Spl. Case No.87/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 21(1)(2)(3) and 23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Vijay Mohan Honakamble and another vs. State of Karnataka and others in Crl.P. No.101143/2022, disposed off on 17.08.2023, wherein the identical issues have been raised and have been answered in favour of the petitioner therein. This Court has held as follows:

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the subject lis is answered - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14855 CRL.P No. 103201 of 2024 in the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar S/o. Gadeppa Khot & another Vs. the State of Karnataka & another in W.P. No.102888/2022, disposed off on 19th October 2022, wherein it is held as under: “The FIR is registered in Crime No.257/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 of IPC and Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short) alleging that accused Nos.1 and 4 induced the people to deposit money stating that the amount invested will be doubled and the said amount which is invested by the public have been utilized for own purpose and for other purposes and during the course of investigation, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, as they were collecting the money from the public as agents of accused No.1. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Section 27 of the Act specifies that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under that section except upon a complaint made by the Regulator. He further submits that the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act is one without authority of law.

The learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits the petitioners - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:14855 CRL.P No. 103201 of 2024 having collected money illegally from the people, committed the aforesaid offences and the Police have registered the FIR and the same does not warrant any interference.

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

Section 7 of the Act, specifies that appropriate government shall, by notification, appoint one or more officers not below the rank of Secretary to that government, as the competent authority for the purpose of this Act. Section 8 specifies that the appropriate government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute one or more Courts known as the Designated Courts for such area or areas to deal with the matters to which the provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act applies. Section 27 of the Act specifies that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under that section except upon a complaint made by the Regulator.

A conjoint reading of this provision indicates that the government shall first appoint a Regulator and thereafter designate a Court to deal with the matters to which the provisions of this Act apply and the Designated Court can take cognizance only on a complaint in writing made by the Regulator.