Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 455 (KAR)

Mathi Lingan v. State of Karnataka

2022-04-01

K.NATARAJAN

body2022
JUDGMENT K. Natarajan, J. - This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused No. 2 and 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 298/2016 registered by the Vidyaranyapura Police Station based on the PCR No. 9423/2016 on the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. Respondent No. 2 though served remained unrepresented. 3. The case of the complainant before the Magistrate is that respondent No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506, 384 r/w 34 of IPC alleging that complainant and his brother A.S. Anand are running Computer Training Center at Yeshwanthapur, Bengaluru and the complainant is the permanent resident of Bengaluru. Accused No. 1 and 4 (not petitioners) had approached the complainant on 30.03.2016 at Nanjappa Circle, Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru, around 5.30 p.m. to discuss the refund of money of Rs. 1.96 Crores from Everonn Education Ltd., Situated at Chennai, Tamil Nadu and informed the complainant that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 wanted to discuss along with the Advocate. Therefore, the accused No. 1 and 4 have requested the complainant to come to Chennai and requested to pay Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the expenditure in order to repay the amount of Rs. 1.96 Crores. 4. Subsequently, the complainant went to Chennai on 06.04.2016 and paid Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the expenditure which was received by the accused persons and accused persons requested complainant to stay for 3-4 days in Chennai and even after the stay for 3 to 4 days the accused persons did not refund the amount to the complainant and asked him to come after 10 days. After completion of 10 days when the complainant asked the accused to refund of the amount, the accused persons demanded for Rs. 5,00,000/- and further demanded for an amount Rs. 10,00,000/- for refund of Rs. 1.96 Crores. It is further stated that accused persons have threatened to kill the complainant with dire consequences. Hence, he filed a complaint with the Vidyaranyapura Police on 15.07.2016, but the said Police did not registered the case against the accused instead they issued N.C.R. Therefore, private complaint came to be filed. 10,00,000/- for refund of Rs. 1.96 Crores. It is further stated that accused persons have threatened to kill the complainant with dire consequences. Hence, he filed a complaint with the Vidyaranyapura Police on 15.07.2016, but the said Police did not registered the case against the accused instead they issued N.C.R. Therefore, private complaint came to be filed. After referring the compliant under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the Police registered the FIR taken up the matter for investigation which is now under Challenge. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioners No. 2 and 3 are employees of Everonn Education Limited and they are nothing to do with the case. Accused No. 1 and 4 who are the requested by the complainant to pay the refund amount of Rs. 1.96 Crores but not these petitioners. The said Company is already under liquidation. The second petitioner has left the job and the High Court of Madras has already passed an order for appointing Official Liquidator and there is no case against these petitioners and the complainant did not accompany with the affidavit or the document for having lodged the complaint. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing this petition. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the investigation is required to be conducted by the Police in this matter. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the complaint which reveals that complainant approached the accused and requested them to pay Rs. 1.96 Crores in respect of Everonn Education Limited situated at Chennai and accused Nos. 1 and 4 said to have demanded Rs. 1,50,000/- for refund of Rs. 1.96 Crores. Subsequently, the complainant went to Chennai and paid the amount and after 10 days again accused person asked the complainant to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- and further demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- in order to refund the amount of Rs. 1.96 Crores. When the complainant did not pay the demanded amount the accused persons threatened the complainant with dire consequences and also threatened to Kill. Hence, complaint came to be lodged. Further perusal of the complaint which reveals that, the complainant has stated to have requested for refund of the money and accused No. 1 and 4 demanded some money but the said money was not paid by the complainant except Rs. 1,50,000/- to be paid at Chennai. 8. Hence, complaint came to be lodged. Further perusal of the complaint which reveals that, the complainant has stated to have requested for refund of the money and accused No. 1 and 4 demanded some money but the said money was not paid by the complainant except Rs. 1,50,000/- to be paid at Chennai. 8. The complainant did not stated what is the actual dispute between the complainant and accused Nos. 1 and 4 for the purpose of requesting for refund of Rs. 1.96 Crores. If at all such a huge amount is paid by the complainant or by his brother to the accused No. 1 and 4 they have referred the same in accordance with law. There is no proper allegation made against the accused persons on what purpose they demanded money from the complainant in order to attract Section 384 of IPC for extortion or black mailing from the accused persons. Just a bald allegation is that for the purpose of refund of amount accused persons demanded some money and accused persons threatened to kill the complainant which is not forthcoming in the complaint. That apart, the allegations is against accused No. 1 and 4 not against these two petitioners. 9. As per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another-Vs-State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 , in paragraphs No. 31 and 32 held as follows: "31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 154(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being hard to the nature of allegations of the case. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 154(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being hard to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offence, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR." "32. The present lis can be perceived from another angle. We are slightly surprised that the financial institution has been compelled to settle the dispute and we are also disposed to think that it has so happened because the complaint cases were filed. Such a situation should not happen." 10. In view of the ratio enunciated in the case of Priyanka Srivastava supra, complaint filed by respondent No. 2 without complying with the requirements under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in law. 11. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the FIR registered against the petitioners is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following order: (i) Criminal Petition is allowed; (ii) The FIR in Crime No. 298/2016 registered by the Vidyaranyapura Police Station based on the PCR No. 9423/2016 pending on the file of the Principal IV Additional C.M.M. Bangalore is hereby quashed.