Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 53 (KAR)

Vijaya Kumar v. State

2016-01-14

RATHNAKALA

body2016
ORDER : Rathnakala, J. 1. Petitioner herein is arrayed as an accused in FIR registered by the respondent-Police in respect of the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case is registered as a suo motu report of the Head Constable of the Police Station whereby he suspects that the petitioner-accused is involved in finance business and imposing exorbitant interest. He receives blank cheques, blank stamp papers from the common people and also levy compound interest on the loan amount. Subsequent to the registration of the FIR police have seized from the premises of the petitioner certain incriminating materials like sale deeds, sale agreements, bank pass books, etc. 2. Sri G. Shankar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that any of the allegations made in the FIR are not true and only on suspicion a false and frivolous complaint is lodged. During the Mahazar, certain documents are said to have been shown. These documents do not belong to him and cheques are out dated and cannot be used as evidence in the Court of law. He is not a money lender. The police has to ascertain as to whether he is a money lender or not and any aggrieved person as a debtor has paid excess or exorbitant interest and also any case being registered in any police station. The other material recovered from his possession are sale deeds and sale agreements which are his own documents. Nobody have complained any harassment from him. The title deeds pertaining to such victims is not seized during mahazar from his possession. The complaint allegation does not attract ingredients under Section 420 of IPC. The entire action of the respondent is abuse of process of law and have to be quashed. 3. Learned HCGP sustaining the registration of the case submits that it is the fundamentals of criminal jurisprudence that anybody can set the law into motion. Under Section 157(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 permits the Police Officer to investigate and send a report forthwith to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance and to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Under Section 157(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 permits the Police Officer to investigate and send a report forthwith to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance and to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and if necessary to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. The blank cheques, Note Books recovered from his possession probabilizes that he was involved in the money lending and imposing exorbitant interest. Investigation disclose the history that he is doing money lending business. 4. I have gone through the investigation material. From the date of incident till now four witnesses were examined. There are some materials to show that the Investigating Officer had made some preliminary enquiry and recovered 2 blank E-stamp papers, one stamp paper, loan agreement, note book with details of loan transaction, sale deed, blank cheque, receipts from his possession apart from his own passbook and cash. The question is from the date of registration till now it is already more than five years and none of the victims are traced. No material about any offence under Section 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act is to be found from the records, at least to suspect offence under Section 420 of IPC, at the least there must be some averments in the complaint to impress basic requirement of the said provision. In the matter of Bishan Dass v State of Punjab and Another (2014) 15 SCC 242 : 2015 Cri. L.J. 281 (SC), has held thus: "The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 of IPC are: (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security and (iii) mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement." 5. There is not even a scintilla of material either from the complaint or from the material borne on record that an offence as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act is committed. That being so, it is inevitable to hold that the case is registered on mere suspicion to vindicate personal vendetta lacks bona fide. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 : 1992 Cri. That being so, it is inevitable to hold that the case is registered on mere suspicion to vindicate personal vendetta lacks bona fide. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v Bhajan Lal and Others, AIR 1992 SC 604 : 1992 SCC (Cri.) 426 : 1992 Cri. L.J. 527 (SC) : 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335, it is a fit case to quash the complaint by exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. The petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No. 102 of 2015, dated 16-7-2015 is hereby quashed against the petitioner.