SHRISHAIL CHANNABASAPPA MOTAGI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

S/o SHRISHAIL MOTAGI, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O DWARAKANATH GALLI, JAMKHANDI. (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELAVANT & SRI. M.C.HUKKERI, ADVS.) AND: … PETITIONERS STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAMKHANDI TOWN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD. (BY SRI VINAYAK S. KULKARNI, HCGP) … RESPONDENT *** 2 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.No.32/2009 IN PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED 10.07.2009 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B), 418, 420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CJM, JAMKHANDI, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER Invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek quashing of the prosecution initiated against them in C.C. No.32/2009 on the file of the learned Addl. CJM, Jamkhandi for the offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 418, 420 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 45 of the RBI Act.

From what learned counsel Mr. V.M.Sheelavanth has adverted to, it is seen one Gurupad Basappa Koujalgi lodged a report at Town Police Station alleging that the petitioners herein and others were running financial business. He had deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on

07.11.2002, Rs.50,000/- on 06.02.2003, Rs. 50,000/- on 3

04.03.2003 and Rs.1,00,000/- in his name, in all Rs.3,00,000/-.

The petitioners and others were running business in the name and style as M/s Shri Manjunath Finance Corporation, Jamkhandi. They were luring the public to deposit the amount assuring high rate of interest. The petitioners fell pray to gullible trick. According to him the petitioners and others who were running business in the name of that firm issued him receipts acknowledging the amount and also in the form of certificate showing the date of maturity to the fixed deposit. The Manager and Secretary of the said firm, have played pivotal role and petitioners as Directors have connived with them. In short the allegations they have misappropriated a sum of Rs.80 lakhs and therefore, liable for prosecution for the offences indicated above.

Petitioners have questioned the action against them, firstly, on the ground that statements in the complaint does not make out any case for initiating 4 prosecution for the offences indicated above. Their contention is they are not the Directors of the firm M/s Shri Manjunath Finance Corporation, Jamkhandi and hence cannot be proceeded against them.

The second ground is that petitioner No.2 – Manjunath has been implicated as accused No.6 but he was minor as in the year 2002 when the complaint is said to have deposited the sum into the firm. The learned counsel Mr. Sheelavanth would submit that even if it is presumed that he was one of the Directors or person incharge in the firm, because he was a minor he could not be held liable. So far as accused No.10 is concerned it is submitted that there is no material produced to show that he is liable to answer the charge.

At the out set the question would be whether invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is justifiable at this stage as the proceedings which is result of the thorough investigation by the jurisdictional Police Officer has reveiled in final report. It is not because of registration of private 5 complaint, but the case registered against the petitioners is based on the Police report. It is further seen from the records that the Complainant – Gurupad Basappa Koujalgi had submitted report to the Investigation Officer, who investigated it and filed final report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C., he has collected material which indicts petitioners making prima facie case against them. Therefore, all the defences and grounds urged in the petition be effectively urged before the learned trial Judge when he would be heard regarding charge. Hence, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it is improper to examine all contentions particularly relating to facts.

But so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned it is shown by production of birth certificate that he was a minor aged 16 years when the Complainant alleged he deposited the amount.

Being of this view the proceedings initiated against the petitioner No.2 is quashed, but so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned, liberty is reserved to him to 6 urge all that he has urged in this petition before the trial court to seek discharge at the appropriate stage.