1

Reserved on : 30.07.2024

Pronounced on : 09.08.2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 09

TH

DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.26231 OF 2023 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN:

SHANKAR NAIK G.K.,

S/O SRI KRISHNA NAIK,

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

OCCUPATION: POLICE INSPECTOR,

NOW AT BIDADI POLICE STATION,

RESIDING AT NO. 140, BALAJI LAYOUT,

15

TH

CROSS ROAD, MALLATHAHALLI,

BENGALURU – 560 006.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

BYATARAYANAPURA P.S

BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION,

BENGALURU

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT BUILDING,

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,

R

2

BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . SRI BHARATH REDDY

AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION,

BENGALURU CITY – 560 026.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B.A.BELLIAPPA, SPP-I A/W

SRI THEJEST P., HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 2 27

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME

NO.454/2023 DTD 22.11.2023 AND COMPLAINT DTD 22.11. 2023

REGISTERED BY THE R1 / BYATARAYANAPURA PS,

BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE

PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.1 AND

ONE ANOTHER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTI ONS

110, 201, 409, 465 OF IPC AND SECTION 7 OF PREVENTI ON OF

CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HO N’BLE

IV ADDL.CMM, BENGALURU CITY, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONE R /

ACCUSED NO.1 HEREIN IS CONCERNED, PRODUCED VIDE

ANNEXURES - A AND B.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS ON 30.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEME NT

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

3

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in que stion crime in

Crime No.454 of 2023 registered for offences punish able under

Sections 409, 465, 201, 110 of the IPC and Section 7 of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) pending

before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru

City.

2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner is a Government servant in the cadr e of Police

Inspector in the Home Department. The story would c ommence

when the petitioner was posted as Police Inspector at

Byatarayanapura Police Station. On 11-10-2021 whil e serving as

Police Inspector in the said Police Station, a crime comes to be

registered in Crime No.247 of 2022 against one Santhosh Kumar for

offences punishable under Sections 381 and 420 of t he IPC. The

petitioner was the Investigating Officer in the said case. During the

course of investigation, in the said crime, a recovery of `72/- lakhs

was made and was reported under PF Nos.133/2022, 13 6/2022 and

4

141/2022. On 20-10-2022, it is the averment that, Crime No.247 of

2022 was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Kengeri gate Sub-Division. But again, the said cri me was

retransferred to the 2

nd

respondent/Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Byatarayanapura Sub-Division.

3. When things stood thus, the petitioner on 27-01 -2023 was

transferred out of Byatarayanapura Police Station a nd posted as

Police Inspector, Anekal Police Station. On 27-02-2023, after the

transfer of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate directed the 1

st

respondent Police to deliver the seized amount of `72/- lakhs to the

custody of the officials of the Income-Tax Departme nt. It is here

the role of the petitioner surfaced. On 26-02-2023 , the previous

day of the said order, the petitioner carries a bag to

Byatarayanapura Police Station which allegedly cont ained `72/-

lakhs and placed the same in the Police Station. A fter the said

money being kept in the Police Station, the officials of the Income-

Tax Department visit Byatarayanapura Police Station and in the

presence of the then Police Inspector and the panchas opened the

bag and found `72/- lakhs consisting of various denominations of

5

currency notes of `100/-, `200/-, `500/- and `2000/- which also

consisted of two bundles which did bear State Bank of India Branch

seal and covering.

4. Later, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Admin istration),

Bengaluru in terms of his order dated 17-06-2023 ap points

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chickpet Sub-Division to conduct

a preliminary enquiry as to why the amount was carr ied into the

Police Station. Preliminary enquiry was conducted, petitioner was

questioned and the report of the inquiry goes in fa vour of the

petitioner, as the allegations were held to be not proved. Long

after the conduct of preliminary enquiry and report being submitted

by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, a crime co mes to be

registered in Crime No.454 of 2023 i.e., on 22-11-2023, by the 2

nd

respondent/Assistant Commissioner of Police, a different Assistant

Commissioner of Police than the one who had conduct ed the

preliminary enquiry earlier. It was for the afore-quoted offences.

The allegation in the complaint was that the petitioner had kept

with him entire `72/- lakhs notwithstanding PF being drawn on it

and did not deposit it to the State Treasury inter alia. The moment

6

crime is registered, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court

in the subject petition. A coordinate Bench of thi s Court, on

24-11-2023, stayed further investigation against the petitioner. The

said interim order of stay is operating even today.

5. Heard Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel app earing for

the petitioner and Sri B.A.Belliappa, learned State Public

Prosecutor-I for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitione r would

vehemently contend that the crime is registered for offences

punishable under Section 7 of the Act and Sections 409, 465, 201

and 110 of the IPC. All these would not even become applicable to

the case at hand. There is no criminal misconduct on the part of

the petitioner. He has handed over charge to the incumbent with

all necessary documents including PF that was drawn of the

amount. There is no warrant for the petitioner to carry the bags and

keep them in the Police Station at a later point in time. This is a

story that is brought out against the petitioner. He would further

contend that a preliminary enquiry was conducted by an Assistant

Commissioner of Police who clearly holds that there is no

7

misconduct on the part of the petitioner and he has not mishandled

the PF of `72/- lakhs. He would submit that in the light of th e

findings in the preliminary enquiry, the crime against the petitioner

ought not to have been registered. He would submit merely

because notes of the denomination are different tha n that was

seized earlier, it cannot become a crime against the petitioner. In

all, he would seek quashment of the entire proceedings contending

that permitting investigation against this police o fficer would

become an abuse of the process of law.

7. Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor -I

Sri B.A.Belliappa would vehemently refute the submi ssions by

taking this Court to the investigation materials threadbare. He

would submit that the crime was registered on 12-10 -2022 and

seizure happens on the very day. The seizure mahaz ar was drawn

in PF on three dates up to 20-10-2022. It is then the investigation

was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Po lice. The

petitioner was issued notice to deposit the seized amount to the

Treasury. Though reminders were sent, he never depo sited the

amount in the Treasury. Meanwhile he is transferre d out of

8

Byatarayanapura Police Station. Notice was issued to him to hand

over charge and seized money and other articles. H e never

complies. Later when he comes to know that the Inc ome Tax

Department is filing application under Sections 451 and 457 of the

Cr.P.C. claiming the amount as belonging to it, he comes to the

Police Station, keeps the money after about 4 months of seizure.

8. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I would subm it that

the Officer who conducted preliminary enquiry again st the

petitioner has deliberately favoured the petitioner . Therefore,

against him a departmental inquiry is instituted for having favoured

the petitioner. In all, he would submit that these are all matters of

investigation, which cannot be interdicted at this juncture,

particularly when the offences are punishable under Section 7 of

the Act or IPC offences inter alia. The offences would all crystallize

only after conduct of investigation and filing of a final report. For

the perusal of the Court, the learned State Public Prosecutor-I has

placed all the materials in Crime No.247 of 2022. S ince interim

order was granted just two days after registration of the crime, no

investigation has taken place in Crime No.454 of 20 23. He would

9

seek dismissal of the petition and permitting further investigation to

go on.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the su bmissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have per used the

material on record.

10. The afore-narrated facts though are a matter o f record in

Crime No.247 of 2022, the link in the chain of events are necessary

to be noticed, as it would give a clear picture as to how the

petitioner becomes an accused in Crime No.454 of 20 23. On

29-09-2022 an incident of theft is reported to the Byatarayanapura

Police Station. The crime then comes to be registered before the

Byatarayanapura Police Station in Crime No.247 of 2 022 on

12-10-2022. The petitioner was the Investigating Of ficer. The

seizure of the amount happens in a staggered manner on three

occasions. On 14-10-2022, part of the amount was se ized which is

drawn in PF 133 of 2022. On 18-10-2022 the second s eizure

happens, and it is drawn in PF 136 of 2022 and on 20-10-2022 the

third seizure happens which is drawn in PF 141 of 2022. The total

amount that was seized was `72/- lakhs, which is seized in Crime

10

No.247 of 2022. The investigation is then transferr ed to the

Assistant Commissioner of Police by the order of th e Competent

Authority on 20-10-2022, the moment the third seizu re happens.

These are all matters on record. Therefore, from 14 -10-2022 the

events that placed were three seizures and an amoun t of `72/-

lakhs being the seized amount and the investigation transferred to

the Assistant Commissioner of Police one T. Kodandaram.

11. On 08-11-2022, noticing the facts that the pet itioner had

not deposited the seized amount to the Treasury, a notice was

issued. The notice reads as follows:

“-:eÁÕ¥À£À:

-

F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.ºÀjñï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ

¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄgÉUÉ oÁuÁ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ¸ÀASÉå 247/2022 PÀ®A 420, 381 L.¦.¹ gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ

¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹, vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ DgÉÆævÀ£À£ÀÄß

zÀ¸ÀÛVj¥Àr¹ DvÀ¤AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀ£ÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß Ej¹zÀÝ EvÀgÀjAzÀ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.72,00,000/-

(J¥ÀàvÉÛgÀqÀÄ ®PÀë) ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ oÁuÁ ªÀiÁ®Ä ¥ÀnÖ ¸ÀASÉå 1) 133/2022gÀ°è

47,00,000/- 2) ªÀiÁ®Ä¥ÀnÖ ¸ÀASÉå 136/2022 gÀ°è 15,00,000/- ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3) ªÀiÁ®Ä ¥ÀnÖ

¸ÀASÉå 141/2022 gÀ°è 10,00,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹, vÀ¤SÉ ªÀÄÄVAiÀÄĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ

vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°èlÄÖPÉƼÀî®Ä WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ

ºÀtªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä §½ EzÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹgÀÄwÛÃj.

¢£ÁAPÀ:20/10/2022 PÉù£À ªÀÄÄA¢£À vÀ¤SÉUÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ,

¥À²éªÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀA:¹.Dgï.JA/626/r¹¦(¥À)/2022 gÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ

PÀvÀqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¦.L gÀªÀjAzÀ ¥ÀrzÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀĪÀAvÉ £À£ÀUÉ

DzÉò¹gÀĪÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:27/10/2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¦.L ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ

PÉù£À PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ ºÀt

11

72,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÉAiÀÄ zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ReÁ£É, «zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀzÀ°è Ej¹,

¹éÃPÀÈw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ vÀAzÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.”

Even then, the amount is not deposited in the Treas ury by the

petitioner. A reminder is sent on 17-11-2022, to d eposit the

amount. The reminder reads as follows:

“¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï £ÉÆÃnøï

(PÀ®A:91 ¹.Dgï.¦.¹)

* * * * * *

F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀÀgÉ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 12-10-2022 gÀAzÀÄ

¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV vÀªÀÄä ºÀwÛgÀ qÉæöʪÀgï PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝ

¸ÀAvÉÆõïPÀĪÀiÁgï JA¨ÁvÀ£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19-09-2022 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 12:00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è

ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¸Áål¯ÉÊmï §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ vÁªÀÅ PÁj¤AzÀ E½zÀÄ CAUÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ

¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è vÀªÀÄä ¥sÉÆÃqïð EArªÉÃgï PÁgÀÄ£À £ÀA: J¦-39-f.AiÀÄÄ-1919 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ°èzÀÝ

75,00,000/- gÀÆ UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ PÀ¼ÀîvÀ£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅzÁV zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ,

F §UÉÎ ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA 247/2022 PÀ®A:381, 420 L.¦.¹

AiÀÄAvÉ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ:20/10/2022 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ

¸ÀzÀj PÉù£À PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀĪÀAvÉ £À£ÀUÉ £ÀA:¹.Dgï.JA/626/r.¹.¦(¥À)2022

gÀ°è DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj PÉù£À PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

FUÁUÀ¯Éà ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¨Áj vÀ¤SÉUÉ ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸À®Ä w½¹zÀÝgÀÆ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀiÁzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ

ºÁdgÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

DzÀPÁgÀt PÉù£À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ¸À®ÄªÁV ¤ÃªÀÅ zÀÆj£À°è w½¹gÀĪÀ ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ

PÀ¼ÀĪÁVgÀĪÀ 75,00,000/- ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ §UÉÎ vÀªÀÄä §½ EgÀĪÀ zÁR¯Áw ºÁUÀÆ

¸ÁPÁëöåzsÁgÀUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ «ZÁgÀuÉUÁV ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”

This time also the petitioner does not deposit the amount in the

Treasury. The third reminder comes about on 26-12-2 022. The

third reminder reads as follows:

12

“-:eÁÕ¥À£À:-

F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.ºÀjñï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ

¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ oÁuÁ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ¸ÀASÉå 247/2022 PÀ®A 420, 406 L.¦.¹ gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ

¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹, vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ DgÉÆævÀ£À£ÀÄß

zÀ¸ÀÛVj¥Àr¹ DvÀ¤AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀÀ£ÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß Ej¹zÀÝ EvÀgÀjAzÀ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.72,00,000/-

(J¥ÀàvÉÛgÀqÀÄ ®PÀë) ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ oÁuÁ ªÀiÁ®Ä ¥ÀnÖ ¸ÀASÉå 1)133/2022gÀ°è

47,00,000/- 2) ªÀiÁ®Ä¥ÀnÖ ¸ÀASÉå 136/2022 gÀ°è 15,00,000/- ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3) ªÀiÁ®Ä ¥ÀnÖ

¸ÀASÉå 141/2022 gÀ°è 10,00,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹, vÀ¤SÉ ªÀÄÄVAiÀÄĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ

vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°èlÄÖPÉƼÀî®Ä WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ

ºÀtªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä §½ EzÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹgÀÄwÛÃj.

¢£ÁAPÀ: 20/10/2022 PÉù£À ªÀÄÄA¢£À vÀ¤SÉUÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ,

¥À²ÑªÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀA:¹.Dgï.JA/626/r¹¦(¥À)/2022 gÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ

PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¦.L gÀªÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqɸÀĪÀAvÉ £À£ÀUÉ

DzÉò¹gÀĪÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:27/10/2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¦.L ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ

PÉù£À PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹zÀ ºÀt

72,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÉAiÀÄ zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ReÁ£É, «zsÁ£À¸ËzsÀzÀ°è Ej¹,

¹éÃPÀÈw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ vÀAzÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¦ügÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß

ºÀtzÀ §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ PÀgÉvÀÀAzÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀAvÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà eÁÕ¥À£À ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ

¤ÃªÀÅ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ReÁ£ÉUÉ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦ügÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß

¥ÀvÉÛ ªÀiÁqÀzÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è CwêÀ ¤®ðPÀëvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »jAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ

CUËgÀªÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ F eÁÕ¥À£À vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 03 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƼÀUÁV ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¦ü.J¥sï

UÀ¼À°ègÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ReÁ£ÉUÉ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr ¦ügÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ PÀgÉvÀAzÀÄ

ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. E®èªÁzÀ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è vÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É »gÀAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀgÀ¢

¸À°è¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.

¸À»/-

¨sÀgÀvï J¸ï.gÉrØ. PÉ.J¸ï.¦.J¸ï

¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥Éưøï PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï

PÉAUÉÃjUÉÃmï G¥À «¨sÁUÀ

ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ

– 560 026.

gÀªÀjUÉ,

²æÃ.f.PÉ.±ÀAPÀgï £ÁAiÀÄPï, ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ.”

When this was also not honoured, the Investigating Officer issues a

notice on 06-01-2023 directing the petitioner to appear before him

with the PF that was seized. The said notice reads as follows:

13

“(PÀ®A 160 ¹.Dgï.¦.¹ jÃvÀå £ÉÆÃnøï)

- * -

F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.ºÀjñï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ

¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ oÁuÁ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ¸ÀASÉå 247/2022 PÀ®A 420, 406 L.¦.¹ gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ

¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹, vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ DgÉÆævÀ£À£ÀÄß

zÀ¸ÀÛVj¥Àr¹ DvÀ¤AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀÀ£ÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß Ej¹zÀÝ EvÀgÀjAzÀ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.72,00,000/-

(J¥ÀàvÉÛgÀqÀÄ ®PÀë) ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ oÁuÁ ªÀiÁ®Ä ¥ÀnÖ ¸ÀASÉå 1)133/2022gÀ°è

47,00,000/- 2) ªÀiÁ®Ä¥ÀnÖ ¸ÀASÉå 136/2022 gÀ°è 15,00,000/- ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3) ªÀiÁ®Ä ¥ÀnÖ

¸ÀASÉå 141/2022 gÀ°è 10,00,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹, vÀ¤SÉ ªÀÄÄVAiÀÄĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ

vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°èlÄÖPÉƼÀî®Ä WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ

ºÀtªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä §½ EzÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹgÀÄwÛÃj.

PÉù£À ªÀÄÄA¢£À vÀ¤SÉUÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ,

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀA.¹.Dgï.JA/626/r¹¦(¥À)/2022 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ

PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ,

1)

¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¸ÀĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¦ügÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjAzÀ zÀÆgÀÄ

¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ºÉaÑ£À ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÉ ªÀiÁ»w

¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.

2)

zÀÆj£À°è w½¹gÀĪÀAvÉ C¥ÁlðªÉÄAmï ªÀiÁgÁlzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w

¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÉ CzÀgÀ «ªÀgÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.

3)

DzÁAiÀÄ vÉjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁ»w

¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀÝgÉ CzÀgÀ «ªÀgÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.

4)

¦ügÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉUÀ¼À ªÀiÁ»w ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Áå£ï PÁqÀð

ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.

5)

PÀÈvÀå £ÀqÉzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀPÀÆÌ ªÀgÀ¢ ¢£ÁAPÀPÀÆÌ EgÀĪÀ ªÀåvÁå¸ÀzÀ §UÉÎ

AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¶AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.

6)

DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ ºÀtzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ, PÀÈvÀåPÉÌ

G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹zÀÝ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÉ CzÀgÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.

7)

vÀªÀÄä vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ PÀ®A 91 ¹.Dgï.¦.¹ jÃvÀå

£ÉÆÃnøï AiÀiÁjUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄwÛÃj? CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ §UÉÎ

ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.

DzÀPÁgÀt F ªÉÄð£À J¯Áè ¥Àæ±ÉßUÀ½UÉ 03 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è °TvÀ GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, vÀ¤SÉUÉ

¸ÀºÀPÀj¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.

¸À»/-

¨sÀgÀvï J¸ï.gÉrØ. PÉ.J¸ï.¦.J¸ï

14

¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥Éưøï PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï

PÉAUÉÃjUÉÃmï G¥À «¨sÁUÀ

ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ

– 560 026.

gÀªÀjUÉ,

²æÃ.f.PÉ.±ÀAPÀgï £ÁAiÀÄPï, ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ.”

The petitioner does not appear. Second notice is i ssued on

23-01-2023 to appear before the Assistant Commissio ner of Police.

The second notice reads as follows:

“(PÀ®A 160 ¹.Dgï.¦.¹ jÃvÀå £ÉÆÃnøï - 2)

- * -

F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½AiÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅzÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.ºÀjñï JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ

¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ oÁuÁ ªÉÆPÀzÀݪÉÄ ¸ÀASÉå 247/2022 PÀ®A 420, 406 L.¦.¹ gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ

¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÁR°¹, vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆArzÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ DgÉÆævÀ£À£ÀÄß

zÀ¸ÀÛVj¥Àr¹ DvÀ¤AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀÀ£ÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß Ej¹zÀÝ EvÀgÀjAzÀ MlÄÖ gÀÆ.72,00,000/-

(J¥ÀàvÉÛgÀqÀÄ ®PÀë) ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ oÁuÁ ªÀiÁ®Ä ¥ÀnÖ ¸ÀASÉå 1)133/2022gÀ°è

47,00,000/- 2) ªÀiÁ®Ä¥ÀnÖ ¸ÀASÉå 136/2022 gÀ°è 15,00,000/- ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3) ªÀiÁ®Ä ¥ÀnÖ

¸ÀASÉå 141/2022 gÀ°è 10,00,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹, vÀ¤SÉ ªÀÄÄVAiÀÄĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ

vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°èlÄÖPÉƼÀî®Ä WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ C£ÀĪÀÄw ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ

ºÀtªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä §½ EzÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹgÀÄwÛÃj.

PÉù£À ªÀÄÄA¢£À vÀ¤SÉUÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ,

¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀA:¹.Dgï.JA/626/r¹¦(¥À)/2022 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ

PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ vÀ¤SÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ CA±ÀUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:06/01/2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, vÁªÀÅ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ PÉù£À°è

£ÁªÀÅ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

DzÀÝjAzÀ F £ÉÆÃnøï vÀ®Ä¦zÀ 03 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è °TvÀ GvÀÛgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr PÉù£À

vÀ¤SÉUÉ ¸ÀºÀj¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ. E®èªÁzÀ°è vÁªÀÅ PÉù£À vÀ¤SÉUÉ ¸ÀºÀj¸ÀzÉ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è wêÀæ

¤®ðPÀëvÉ vÉÆÃgÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß

¸À°è¸À¯ÁUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.

¸À»/-

¨sÀgÀvï J¸ï.gÉrØ. PÉ.J¸ï.¦.J¸ï

15

¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥Éưøï PÀ«ÄõÀ£Àgï

PÉAUÉÃjUÉÃmï G¥À «¨sÁUÀ

ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ

– 560 026.

gÀªÀjUÉ,

²æÃ.f.PÉ.±ÀAPÀgï £ÁAiÀÄPï, ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ.”

Even then the petitioner does not appear before the Assistant

Commissioner of Police.

12. Pending appearance before the Assistant Commis sioner of

Police, the petitioner was transferred from Byatarayanapura Police

Station on 27-01-2023 and was directed to report at the

Headquarters. A notice dated 02-02-2023 comes to b e issued to

the petitioner to hand over charge to the new incumbent including

the seized money and other articles. The petitioner moves out of

Byatarayanapura Police Station, but the seized amou nt does not

move out of his possession. The Income-Tax Departme nt had

claimed over the seized amount which was marked as PF, as afore-

quoted. An application appears to have been filed by the Income

Tax Department before the learned Magistrate in Crime No.247 of

2022 seeking seized amount to its custody invoking Sections 451

and 457 of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner learnt about this and comes

16

to the Police station with the aid of some other person on 26-02-

2023 and keeps the seized amount in the Police stat ion without

handing over charge to the incumbent.

13. What is to be noticed is, from 02-02-2023 till 26-02-2023

the petitioner did not hand over charge of the post of Police

Inspector at Byatarayanapura Police Station notwith standing the

fact that he was transferred to Anekal Police Station. The concerned

Court directs release of the seized amount to the custody of Deputy

Director of Income Tax, as it was the amount belong ing to the

Income Tax Department. On 06-03-2023 statement of t he

complainant in Crime No.247 of 2022 was recorded. T he statement

of the complainant reads as follows:

“Complainant further statement

:

Hareesh Koppisetty, S/o Prasad Rao, age 29 years, working

as a businessman (Prawns trading) resident of 10-14 6

Batchala Street, Srikakulam, 532168, Ph.7680979787.

Dated: 06-03-2023.

I have been staying in this above address since my birth along

with my parents. I have done B Tech in Mechanical

Engineering and started prawns trading from 2019 along with

my partner John Carmel. We buy the prawns from farm ers of

Bheemavaram and sell it to customers and retailers across

Hyderabad and Bangalore. With respect to this we st arted a

17

company Zoropie Garuda Pvt. Ltd. in HSR Lay-out in July

2022.

As part of the trading of prawns me and my partner received

around 75 lakhs over a period of 4 -5 months in 202 2 and

wanted to use it for our company Zoropie. Hence I got the said

money from Hyderabad to Hoskote, Bangalore to my co usin

Shekar’s place on the 20

th

of September around 12.10 a.m.

(midnight) along with my driver Santosh in my Ford

Endeavour Car Reg.No. AP 39 GU 1919.

I had hired Santosh a resident of Kolar from around May 2022

as my personal driver. On 20

th

of September after reaching my

cousin’s place in Hoskote, I got down of the vehicle and was

waiting for the driver to park the vehicle. However, Santosh

my driver after I got down drove the car away and s witched

off his phone. I couldn’t reach him and I panicked and

approached the local police station who were of no help.

After a while I received a voice message on Whatsapp around

2 a.m. from Santhosh that he was sorry for what he did. Later

we tried reaching out to the family of Santosh and we didn’t

get any lead about whereabouts of Santosh or the mo ney that

he stole from me.

Around 6 a.m. the stole vehicle, my Ford Endeavour was

brought to my cousin’s house by towing people. On e nquiring

them they told Santosh my driver had left the vehic le in

Bagalur area and had arranged for the towing to be done to

my cousin’s place in Hoskote. I have the corresponding towing

bill with me.

Since the local police refused to take my complaint , I felt

miserable and sought help from friends and family. One of our

family friends introduced me to one person Lokanth Singh.

Loknath Singh suggested us to meet Byatrayanapura P olice

Inspector Shankar Naik with our problem.

On 24

th

of September my father Prasad Rao suffered brain

stroke hence I had to leave for Manipal Hospital Whitefield. On

the same day since I couldn’t meet Shankar Naik, Po lice

Inspector, John Carmel my partner met Shankar Naik and

Loknath Singh in Byatrayanapura Police Station. Bef ore

18

meeting Shankar Naik, Loknath had asked us to give 20 lakhs

for Shankar Naik as he will help us get the entire lost money of

75 lakhs.

On meeting Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police Insp ector,

he listened to John about the incident and collecte d

information about Santosh my driver. Shankar Naik,

Byatrayanapura Police Inspector told John that sinc e the

offence had to be made as if it occurred in his limits, he would

create a complaint with scene of crime as near Imperial Hotel

Satellite Bus Stand, Byatrayanapura. And also Shankar Naik,

Byatrayanapura Police Inspector told John that he will mention

that the lost money was obtained from selling of pr operty

which was not true. We had received just 7 lakhs from selling

one property by John’s brother. Since we were in a vulnerable

position John had to agree to it.

Later after a few days I had to leave to Hyderabad along with

my father. On 12

th

October, 2022 John was called to the

Byatrayanapura Station and since I was not present in

Bangalore Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police inspe ctor

insisted John to sign instead of me even though the name of

the complainant was me Hareesh. Shankar Naik,

Byatrayanapura Police Inspector pressurized John to sign as

by then the police had already caught the brother-i n-law of

Santosh. John who was not keeping well, yielded and signed

for the FIR late night on that day. With this Cr.No.247 of 2022

u/s 381 and 420 of IPC, was registered in Byatrayan apura

Police Station against Santosh and with me as the complainant

even though I was in Hyderabad. John narrated this incident

later to me.

After a couple of days John and I got to know that the

Byatrayanapura Police had arrested Santosh and henc e we

approached Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police Insp ector

who said that only a part of the money was recovere d. Later

we got to know that Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Po lice

Inspector had also got vehicles of Santosh’s brother Sampath

and his friend Chennakeshava to Byatrayanapura Poli ce

Station.

When we approached Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Pol ice

Inspector, he was behaving in a rude manner with us and

19

asked us to wait for 2 – 3 days. Then we got to kno w that

Shankar Naik, Byatrayanapura Police Inspector had

manipulated many things in the case and also since my father

was not keeping well, I left for Hyderabad and am appearing

before the new investigation officer ACP, Kengerigate to-day

on 6-03-2023 as per his notice.”

The complainant clearly narrates that the petitioner had demanded

bribe to release `72/- lakhs. The bribe amount that he demanded

was `20/- lakhs. Further statements are recorded on 06-03-2023 of

another person and the complainant also gives his 1 64 Cr.P.C.

statement before the learned Magistrate in Crime No.247 of 2022.

The 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant reads as follows:

“¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉ C¥ÀgÁzÀ ¸ÀASÉå: 247/2022

¨Á¢üvÀ ²æÃ.ºÀjñï gÀªÀgÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæªÁV AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà MvÀÛqÀ«®èzÉà ºÉýPÉ

¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

£ÉÆAzÀ ¨Á¢vÀjUÉ ºÉýPÉ ¤qÀ®Ä PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À ¤ÃqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ

DªÀgÀt¢AzÀ ¥ÉÆðøïgÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀĪÀÅzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ : PÉƦà¸ÉnÖ ºÀjñï

vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ : PÉƦà¸ÉnÖ ¥Àæ¸Ázï PÉ

ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 29 ªÀµÀð

GzÉÆåÃUÀ : SÁ¸ÀV ªÁå¥ÁgÀ

ªÁ¸À : ºÉƸÀPÉÆÃmÉ

¢£ÁAPÀ : 14.03.2023

¨sÁ¢vÀgÁzÀ ²æà PÉƦà¸ÉnÖ ºÀjñï gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ªÀZÀ£À ¨sÉÆâ¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ

¨sÁ¢vÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÉƦà¸ÉnÖ ºÀjñï zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÀiÁ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 164 jÃvÀå ¤ÃrzÀ ºÉýPÉ

(ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä §AzÀ ªÀåQÛUÉ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ, CzÀ£ÀÄß J°è PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¯ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ

JAzÀÄ w½¹ ºÉüÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÉ AiÀiÁgÁzÀgÀÆ MvÁÛAiÀÄ EzÀÝgÉ ºÉýPÉ

20

¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¸À®¬ÄvÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà MvÁÛAiÀÄ E®è. £À£Àß

«gÀÄzÀÝ MAzÀÄ WÀl£É £ÀqÉ¢zÉ, CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £Á£Éà ¸ÀévÀ: ºÉýPÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä

ºÁdgÁUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄzÀ°è ¨sÁ¢vÀ¼ÀÄ vÀ£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä

¸Àé EZÉѬÄAzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÁQëUÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ªÀZÀ£À

¨ÉÆâü¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.)

In the month of May 2022 I hired Santhosh Kumar fro m

Kolar as my personal driver. In September 29

th

around 11.55

when we were on our way to by cousin place I was ca rrying

75,00,000/- cash in the car. When we reached the place he was

supposed to park the car and I got down from the ca r and the

driver fled with the car and cash around 12.04 A.M. After that

myself and my cousin went to the Police station nex t to the

Hoskote toll: There the police told that it doesn't come under

their jurisdiction and then we went towards city limits police

station. By that time Santhosh left a voice message to my

number stating that I am sorry, I did mistake again his phone

was switched off. Then in the morning around 05.30 A.M one

person came with towing slip with the photograph of Santhosh

and one other person, along with the car stating Santhosh had

handed over the vehicle near Bagalur bus stop. Then I contacted

one of my partner Mr.John he suggested us to wait f or some

time. Later the previous day Mr. Santhosh had dropp ed wallet

by oversight and same was handed over to me by secu rity

guard and in that we could find 8 contact numbers. We started

to call those numbers but they replied that they we re not in

contact with Santhosh from 3months. As we got infor mation

about him through online then we got to know about him

through the agency that he had bad remarks. Then th ey helped

us in knowing his house address. Then we went to th e address

and spoke to his parents and they requested to give 2 days time

to sort out the issue. Then Mr. John suggested us to contact BR

Pura Police for further assistance through a 3

rd

party and that 3

rd

party demanded to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- and he told u s to meet

us on 24.09.2022 at BR Pura Police Station. On the same day I

was suppose to go to the police station but my father got with

brain stroke on the same day and we admitted him on the same

date to the hospital. On behalf of me Mr. John met the C.I of

BR. Pura Police Station along with 3

rd

party. The C.I had told to

give 3-4 days to time to sort out the issue. On 7

th

of October the

person who was brother in law of Santhosh was caugh t by BR

Pura Police. 12

th

October early morning I received a call from

Santhosh old number requesting to release his brother in law so

21

that he will hand over the entire cash. Same was intimated to

john in turn John intimated the same to Shankar nai k and SI

Rahul Reddy. On the same day late night Shankar nai k and SI

Rahul Reddy insisted Mr John to sign the complaint on behalf of

me. On 14

th

October Santhosh was caught, then 15

th

October I

came back to Hydrabad to Bangalore and met Shankar naik.

Later I enquired the next procedure with Shankar na ik and he

intimated as that sum of Rs.60,00,000/- has been re covered

from Santhosh and the balance will be recovered in a couple of

3-4 days. After 2-3 days Santhosh's brother had called me and

intimated that they have given Rs.72,00,000/- to the police and

balance of 3,00,000/- will be given in few days. Then I went to

Shankar naik informed the same to him then he asked two days

time. The 3

rd

person intimated us that Mr. Shankar naik was

demanding half of the amount and the same was refus ed by us.

Next day Shankar naik called me and asked for the p roof of

identity later he referred to the income tax department. Then

Income Tax department had sent a notice to which I have

replied.

(F ªÉÄð£À GPÀÛ¯ÉÃR£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ®Qëöä.PÉ £ÀPÀ®Ä ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁwð gÀªÀjAzÀ PÀA¥ÀÆålgï

£À°è ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ 04.00 jAzÀ 04.30 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ªÉÄð£À

ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQëUÉ N¢ ºÉý ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.)

C/c JAJAn¹-2, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.”

By then the Income Tax Department had recovered the amount

from the Police Station and taken to its custody in terms of the

order passed by the concerned Court.

14. On all these factors, the Deputy Commissioner of Police

(Administration) orders a preliminary enquiry against the petitioner

for all the events narrated hereinabove. The prelim inary enquiry

results in exoneration of the petitioner. The preliminary enquiry is

22

conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police appointed by the

Deputy Commissioner of Police. The findings in the preliminary

enquiry go in favour of the petitioner. Certain observations become

germane to be notice and they read as follows:

“…. …. ….

9. ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:-26-02-2023 gÀAzÀÄ

»A¢£À ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï ±ÀAPÀgï£ÁAiÀÄPï ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï gÀªÀgÀÄ

oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ²æà ¤AUÀ£ÀUËqÀ J.¥Ánïï gÀªÀjUÉ oÁuÁ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ

¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AUÀ£ïUËqÀ J.¥Ánïï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹,

vÀ£Àß ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ oÁuÁ ¹¹n«AiÀÄ°è zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

10.

¢£ÁAPÀ:-26-02-2023 gÀ°è ¨É½UÉÎ ±ÀAPÀgï£ÁAiÀÄPï ¦.L gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß

¤AUÀ£ïUËqÀ J ¥Ánïï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÁUÀ oÁuÁ

¸ÀévÀÄÛ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ

ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ JuÉPÉ ªÀiÁr¹ ¥ÀÄ£À: ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À

ªÀÄÆ®PÀ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è Ej¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¹¹n« ¥ÀÄmÉÃeï£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ

PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

11.

¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-26-02-2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¥Éưøï

E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ bÉÃA§gï£À°è ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß JtÂPÉ AiÀÄAvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ

Jt¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÁåUï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ mÉç¯ï ªÉÄÃ¯É ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ

PÉÆ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÉ«UÀÆ 500 gÀÆUÀ¼À §AqÀ¯ïUÀ¼ÀÄ ¦.L gÀªÀgÀ mÉç¯ï£À°è ElÄÖ

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¨ÁåUï£À°ègÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ J¹¦

PÉAUÉÃjUÉÃmï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ¹¹n«AiÀÄ°è PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

12.

¤AUÀ£ïUËqÀ J ¥Ánïï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:15-04-2023 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄzÁV

¥ÀÆtð ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ DzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:-26-

02-2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ ¤AUÀ£ïUËqÀ J

¥Ánïï gÀªÀgÀÄ G½zÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ

vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¦.L ªÀÄvÀÄÛ oÁuÁ §gÀºÀUÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPɬÄAzÀ

w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ J¯Áè ¢£ÁAPÀzÀ ¹¹n« ¥ÀÄmÉÃeïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß

¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

13.

¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ ºÁ° ¦.L gÀªÀgÁzÀ ¤AUÀ£ïUËqÀ J

¥Ánïï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ºÉýPÉUÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ oÁuÁ §gÀºÀUÁgÀgÁzÀ ªÀĺÉñÀ

C¥ÀgÁzÀ «¨sÁUÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼ÁzÀ ªÉÆUÀ®å£ÁAiÀÄPï, CtÚ¥Àà QvÀÆÛgÀÄ, ²ªÀgÁdÄ

23

gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ ºÉýPÉUÀÆ ªÀåvÁå¸À «gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 500, 2000, 200, 100

ªÀÄÄR¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À PÀAvÉAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ

ºÀtzÀ PÀªÀgï£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆtðªÁV vÉÆÃj¸ÀzÉà ©ÃgÀÄ«£À°è Ej¹ QÃAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

§gÀºÀUÁgÀjUÉ ElÄÖPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ w½¹ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ JA§ÄzÁV ¦.L

¤AUÀ£ïUËqÀ J ¥Ánïï w½¹zÀÄÝ DzÀgÉ oÁuÁ §gÀºÀUÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀtzÀ

§UÉÎ ªÀiÁ»w w½¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¸ÀévÀÄÛ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ J¯Áè ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Éưøï

E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï ¤AUÀ£ïUËqÀ J ¥Ánïï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ©ÃgÀÄ«£À°èqÀ®Ä

C¥ÀgÁzÀ ¹§âA¢UÀ½UÉ ¸ÀÆa¹ Ej¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ DzÀgÉ oÁuÁ

§gÀºÀUÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è 72 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹

©gÀÄ«£À°èlÖ §UÉÎ ¸ÀàµÀÖªÁV ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ°è w½¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ

PÀAqÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÁV ²æà ±ÀAPÀgï£ÁAiÀÄPï ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï, gÀªÀjUÉ

vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÁzÀ J¹¦ PÉAUÉÃj UÉÃmï G¥À «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÀ®ªÀÅ ¨Áj

eÁÕ¥À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ReÁ£É AiÀÄ°èj¹ ¹éÃPÀÈwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï gÀªÀgÁzÀ ¤AUÀ£ïUËqÀ ¥Ánïï gÀªÀjUÉ

¢£ÁAPÀ:-26-02-2023 gÀAzÀÄ ±ÀAPÀgï £ÁAiÀÄPï ¦.L gÀªÀgÀÄ 72,00,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß

oÁuÉUÉ vÀAzÀÄ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ JuÉPÉ ªÀiÁr, oÁuÁ ªÀ±ÀzÀ°èlÄÖPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, D

¸ÀAzsÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀzÉà G½zÀ ¥ÀÆtð ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:15-04-2023

gÀAzÀÄ ¤AUÀ£ïUËqÀ ¥ÁnÃ¯ï ¦.L gÀªÀgÉà ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ D

¸ÀAzsÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è £ÉÆÃlÄ ªÀÄÄR¨É¯É §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ oÁuÉAiÀÄ C¢üPÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

¸ÀE§âA¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀåwjPÀÛ ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÝjAzÀ £ÉÆÃlÄ ªÀÄÄR¨É¯É §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉUÉ

¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ ±ÀAPÀgï£ÁAiÀÄPï ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï (F »AzÉ ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ

¥Éưøï oÁuÉ) gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝzÀ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆÃ¥À ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

¸À»/-

¥ÀƪÀð¨sÁ« «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁj ºÁUÀÆ

¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ

aPÀÌ¥ÉÃmÉ G¥À-«¨sÁUÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ.”

(

Emphasis added)

Paragraph 9 supra of the report would read that on 26-02-2023 the

previous Police Inspector i.e., the petitioner comes to the Police

Station and hands over the amount that was seized, to the

incumbent officer one Ninganagouda A Patil, who ver ifies the said

mount and takes to his custody. This is captured i n the CCTV.

24

Merely because denominations are different he canno t be held

guilty is what is the result of the preliminary enq uiry.

Notwithstanding the preliminary enquiry being in fa vour of the

petitioner, another enquiry is directed by the Deputy Commissioner

of Police, by a different Assistant Commissioner of Police who is said

to have nailed the petitioner. It is submitted that, on the score that

the earlier preliminary enquiry was erroneously held in favour of the

petitioner, a departmental enquiry is directed to b e conducted

against the said Assistant Commissioner of Police one K.C. Giri who

had submitted an erroneous enquiry report in favour of the

petitioner. The communication directing initiation of departmental

enquiry against the said officer reads as follows:

“gÀªÀjUÉ,

CrµÀ£À¯ï qÉÊgÀPÀÖgï d£ÀgÀ¯ï

D¥sï ¥Éưøï, DqÀ½vÀ

¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃj, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: ²æà Vj PÉ.¹. ¥Éưøï G¥Á¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ (F »AzÉ aPÀÌ¥ÉÃmÉ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ),

¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃj, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀ «zÀÄzÀÝzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀPÉÌ

¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR:1 r.¹.¦. ¥À²ÑªÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀgÀ¢

¸ÀA.15/rE/EvÀgÉ/r¹¦(¥À)/2023 ¢£ÁAPÀ:09.11.2023.

25

* * * * * *

ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ²æà Vj PÉ.¹. ¥Éưøï G¥Á¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ

¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃj ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ F »AzÉ aPÀÌ¥ÉÃmÉ G¥À «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå

¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ²æà ±ÀAPÀgï£ÁAiÀÄPï f.PÉ. ¦.L ºÁ° ©qÀ¢ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ gÀªÀgÀÄ F

»AzÉ ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.247/2022

PÀ®A 381, 420 L.¦.¹ gÀ°è MmÁÖgÉ gÀÆ.72,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ F

¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß CA¢£À PÉAUÉÃjUÉÃmï G¥À «¨sÁUÀzÀ J.¹.¦ ²æÃ.n.PÉÆÃzÀAqÀgÁªÀiï

gÀªÀjUÉ ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¦.L gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀj¸ÀzÉ ¸ÀzÀj

ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ReÁ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EqÀzÉ vÀ£Àß ¸ÀéAvÀPÉÌ §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ

¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄÄR¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Ej¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¦.J¥sï UÀ¼À°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ

£ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄR¨É¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ MlÄÖ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀASÉå ªÀåwjPÀÛªÁV PÀAqÀħA¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ:

J.¹.¦. aPÀÌ¥ÉÃmÉ G¥À «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¸ÀzÉ ²æÃ.±ÀAPÀgï

£ÁAiÀÄPï f.PÉ.gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄÄavÀ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ°è

¸À°è¸ÀzÉà £ÉÃgÀªÁV ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¹ vÀªÀÄä PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è ¤®ðPÀëvÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝjvÀ£À vÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀPÁÌV ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ²¸ÀÄÛ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä G¯ÉèÃTvÀ

¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ ²æà Vj PÉ.¹. ¥Éưøï G¥Á¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃj. (F »AzÉ aPÀÌ¥ÉÃmÉ

G¥À «¨sÁUÀ) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ J.¹.¦. zÀeÉðAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj

C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÀbÉÃjAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ »£É߯ÉAiÀÄ°è G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß

ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV F ¥ÀvÀæzÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,

G¥À ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ

DqÀ½vÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ.

Digitally Signed by

K Santhosh Babu

Date:17-11-2023

Reason: Approved”

The second preliminary enquiry conducted results in a report on

21-11-2023. This report, as observed hereinabove, n ails the

petitioner. The observations in the report are as follows:

“.... .... ....

MmÁÖgÉ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ

26

“ ²æà ±ÀAPÀgï £ÁAiÀÄPï ¦.L (F »AzÉ ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ) gÀªÀgÀÄ

²¹Û£À ¥Éưøï E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ M§â dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ C¢üPÁjAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, vÀªÀÄä oÁuÉAiÀÄ

ªÉÆ.¸ÀA-247-2023 PÀ®A-381, 420 L¦¹ zÀÆj£À WÀl£ÉAiÀÄÄ vÀªÀÄä oÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è

dgÀÄUÀ¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ vÀªÀÄä oÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ°è £ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹, ¸ÀzÀj

zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¦gÁå¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÉÆAzÀ ªÀåQÛ ºÀjñï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ RÄzÀÄÝ ºÁdgÁV

¤ÃqÀ¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ RÄzÀÄÝ oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀj

zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃ¯É eÁ£ï PÁªÀÄð¯ï JA§ ªÀåQÛ¬ÄAzÀ ºÀjñï JAzÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁr¹ zÀÆgÀÄ

zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ vÀªÀÄä C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ wêÀævÀgÀzÀ

PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÆj£À ¦gÁå¢ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ eÁ£ï PÁªÀÄð¯ï

JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ PÀ®A-164 ¹Dg惡 CrAiÀÄ°è£À ºÉýPɬÄAzÀ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

“ ²æà ±ÀAPÀgï £ÁAiÀÄPï ¦.L gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuɬÄAzÀ

ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀiÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ.27.01.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃw

©qÀÄUÀqÉ ºÉÆAzÀĪÁUÀ CzÉà ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀiÁV §AzÀ ²æà ¤AUÀ£ÀUËqÀ

¥ÁnÃ¯ï ºÁ° ¦.L ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ oÁuÉgÀªÀjUÉ oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ

ªÀÄÄzÉÝêÀiÁ°£À ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ ¥ÀÆtð¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ»¹PÉÆlÄÖ

vÉgÀ¼ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ MAzÀÄ dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀÄÄvÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ CrAiÀÄ°è£À ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ

DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj ±ÀAPÀgï £ÁAiÀÄPï ¦.L gÀªÀgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuɬÄAzÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀiÁzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀÆtð ¥ÀæªÀiÁtzÀ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß

ºÉƸÀzÁV §AzÀ ¦.L gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F §UÉÎ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ

ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj eÁÕ¥À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢üPÀÌj¹

¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦J¥sï ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä §½AiÉÄà ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀªÀÄä

PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è GzÀÝlvÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÉÃdªÁ¨ÁÝjvÀ£À vÉÆÃjgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ PÁ®zÀ°è

¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

“ ²æà ±ÀAPÀgï £ÁAiÀÄPï ¦.L gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuɬÄAzÀ

ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀiÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ.27.01.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F jÃw

©qÀÄUÀqÉ ºÉÆA¢zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ EªÀjUÉ ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå

ZÀlĪÀnPÉUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É C¢üPÁgÀ«®èzÀAvÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀgÉ ²æÃ.±ÀAPÀgï £ÁAiÀÄPï ¦.L

gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:27.01.2023 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉAiÀiÁzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:07.03.2023

gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ¸ÀzÀj oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è

zÁR¯ÁzÀ ªÉƸÀA-222/2022 EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ®Ä¥ÀnÖ ¸ÀA-122/2022

gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÁzÀ 8,80,000/-gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ²æêÀÄw.ªÀ¸ÀAvÀ JA§ÄªÀªÀjUÉ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ

ªÀiÁr vÀªÀÄä PÀvÀðªÀåªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÆgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉ PÁ®zÀ°è

¥Àj²Ã°¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

“ ±ÀAPÀgï £ÁAiÀÄPï f.PÉ. ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï F »AzÉ ¨ÁålgÁAiÀÄ£À¥ÀÄgÀ ¥Éưøï

oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀzÀ°èzÀÄÝ, oÁuÁ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.247/2022 PÀ®A 381, 420 L¦¹

¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹PÉÆArzÀÝ 72 ®PÀë gÀÆ zÉÆqÀØ ªÉÆvÀÛzÀ £ÀUÀzÀ£ÀÄß

¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÉAiÀÄ zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁj ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ

ReÁ£ÉAiÀÄ°èqÀ®Ä ºÀ®ªÀÅ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ReÁ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EqÀzÉÃ

¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ vÀ£Àß ¸ÀéAvÀPÉÌ §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß MzÀV¸À®Ä

27

¨ÁåAPï ¤AzÀ qÁæ ªÀiÁr¹zÀ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄÄR¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ

£ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è vÀA¢lÄÖ £ÀAvÀgÀ CzÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àæ¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀUÁð»¸ÀzÉÃ

vÀªÀÄä C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥ÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ

§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ C®èzÉà ªÀÄÄR¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §zÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀÅ vÉjUÉ

E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ E£ÉéAnæAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

±ÀAPÀgï £ÁAiÀÄPï f.PÉ. ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À ªÉÄîÌAqÀ D¥ÁzÀ£ÉUÀ¼À

§UÉÎ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Àqɹ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À ¥Éưøï

DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, DqÀ½vÀ, ¹.N.¦ PÀZÉÃj gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR ¸ÀA-384/rE-

1/¹N¦/2023 ¢£ÁAPÀ.17.06.2023 gÀAvÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ aPÀÌ¥ÉÃmÉ

G¥À «¨sÁUÀgÀªÀjUÉ DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ CA¢£À ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥Éưøï

DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÁVzÀÝ ²æÃ.Vj, PÉ.¹ gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÀZÉÃjAiÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR ¸ÀA-03/E.«/J¹¦-

4/2023 gÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ.06.10.2023 gÀAzÀÄ

£ÉÃgÀªÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå G¥À ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ DqÀ½vÀ gÀªÀjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ

§A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹zÁUÀ ±ÀAPÀgï£ÁAiÀÄPï ¦.L gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä

C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÆgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå¯ÉÆÃ¥À, PÀvÀðªÀå ¤®ðPÀëvÀ£À, GzÀÝlÖvÀ£À

vÉÆÃjgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÉÄïÉÆßÃlPÉÌ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è PÀAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ «ªÀgÀªÁzÀ ¥ÀÆtð

¥ÀæªÀiÁt E¯ÁSÁ «ZÁgÀuÉ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄªÀÅzÀÄ £À£Àß

C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

F ªÀgÀ¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥Éưøï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ aPÀÌ¥ÉÃmÉ G¥À «¨sÁUÀgÀªÀgÀÄ

£ÀqɹzÀ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ «ZÁgÀuÁ ªÀgÀ¢ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀPÉÌ ®UÀvÁÛzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹ ªÀÄÄA¢£À

PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀ°èUÉ ¸À°è¹zÉ.

C©ü£ÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ,”

The very next day, the crime is registered in Crime No.454 of 2023.

The offences are the ones punishable under Sections as afore-

quoted.

15. In the teeth of the afore-narrated maze of facts, what is

discernible is, that the petitioner did not deposit the amount seized

to the Treasury after marking it as property folio. Hence, it would

28

prima facie reveal that the entire amount of `72/- lakhs was in the

custody of the petitioner from 20-10-2022 till 26-02-2023 for about

4 months and the earlier Enquiry Officer, who condu cted

preliminary enquiry has himself observed that CCTV footage clearly

indicates that the petitioner comes to the Police Station long after

his relieving, keeps the amount of seizure and goes away. On the

next day the Income Tax Officials take custody of the said amount.

The marked difference between the PF that was enter ed on seizure

of the amount and the return of it there was comple te change of

denominations of notes.

16. The seizure panchanama that was drawn on 3 days i.e.,

on 14-10-2022, 18-10-2022 and 20-10-2022 revealed b undled

notes of `500/- denomination and were from Axis Bank. But, t he

amount that is kept back in the Police Station after four months by

the petitioner was of different Bank and completely of different

denominations. Therefore, two factors would emerge – one, the

petitioner keeping the amount with him without depositing it to the

Treasury and the other, tampering with PF by changi ng the

denomination of notes. These factors prima facie would meet the

29

ingredients of the crime that is alleged against th e petitioner.

Therefore, the matter would require investigation, in the least, as

the factors are glaring and clear insofar as ingredients of offences

are concerned. It would here become apposite to re fer to the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

KAPTAN SINGH v.

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

1

wherein it is held as follows:

“9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted tha t

in the present case the High Court in exercise of p owers

under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal

proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 14 8,

149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be not ed

that when the High Court in exercise of powers unde r

Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by

the time the investigating officer after recording the

statement of the witnesses, statement of the

complainant and collecting the evidence from the

incident place and after taking statement of the

independent witnesses and even statement of the

accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the

learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147,

148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned

Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned

judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P.,

2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does

not appear that the High Court took into considerat ion the

material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even

the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482

CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allega tions

in the FIR/complaint only are required to be consid ered

and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or no t is

required to be considered. However, thereafter when

the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and

the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the

1

(2021) 9 SCC 35

30

investigation/inquiry the matter stands on differen t

footing and the Court is required to consider the

material/evidence collected during the investigatio n.

Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in

a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into

the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of

the case as if the High Court is exercising the app ellate

jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court

in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubh ai

Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018 ) 1 SCC

(Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents

of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court

cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the

powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held

that that question is required to be examined keeping in view,

the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring

no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate

evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from

contents of FIR and material relied on. It is furthe r

observed it is more so, when the material relied on is

disputed. It is further observed that in such a sit uation,

it becomes the job of the investigating authority a t such

stage to probe and then of the court to examine

questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such

material as to how far and to what extent reliance can

be placed on such material.

9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram

Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 :

(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this

Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992

Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this

Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrP C to

quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rul e. It is

further observed that inherent jurisdiction under

Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised

sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when su ch

exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the

section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of

evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashin g of

proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482

CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind

31

Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : ( 2020) 1

SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Ma nagipet,

(2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and

in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1

SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.

9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in th e

aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of

the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in

quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under

Section 482 CrPC.

10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider

the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations

which are required to be gone into and considered at the time

of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which

have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High

Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the

document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta

Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2

Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the posses sion

was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required

to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-

10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs

and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni

Devi and no reference to handing over the possessio n.

However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e.

27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out

of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is

a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs

25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to e stablish

during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said

document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the

joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required

to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25

lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference

to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered

document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/alle gations

which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The

High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material

collected during the investigation.

32

11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court

that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC

is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has

noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is

seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is

required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the

High Court has committed an error. Even the High Co urt has

failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the

accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 4 71 IPC

with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even

according to the accused the possession was handed over to

them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as

mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed

and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each o f Rs 2

lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were

handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can

be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage

to opine that no case is made out for the offence u nder

Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be

considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the

first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent

suit came to be filed by the accused and that too f or

permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit

for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all

the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time

of trial only.

12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in

quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the

merits of the allegations as if the High Court was

exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conduc ting

the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdic tion in

quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of po wers

under Section 482 CrPC.

13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that

original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is

made on the premise that the complainant has not pl aced on

record the power of attorney along with the counter filed

before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated

in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney

and thereafter the investigating officer has conduc ted the

33

investigation and has recorded the statement of the

complainant, accused and the independent witnesses,

thereafter whether the complainant is having the po wer of

attorney or not is to be considered during trial.

14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated

above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shya m

Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] pa ssed by

the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise

of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable a nd the

same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly

quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and

proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own

merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this

Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be

confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and

the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and

on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid

and without being influenced by any of the observations made

by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

17. In the light of seriously disputed maze of facts which

prima facie depict a crime thriller, it would amaze this Court for

entertaining the subject petition, as it does require investigation in

the least.

18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

O R D E R

(i) The Writ Petition is rejected.

34

(ii) Interim order, if any operating, shall stand dissolved.

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made i n the

course of the order are only for the purpose of

consideration of the case of petitioner under Section

482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence

the pending investigation/proceedings against him.

Sd/-

(M.

NAGAPRASANNA )

J

UDGE

bkp

CT:MJ