2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 44376
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6886/2020
BETWEEN
MAHADEVAIAH,
S/O LATE MARIMADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RETIRED KSRTC EMPLOYEE,
R/AT NO.54, 1ST STAGE, 2ND CROSS,
GANGOTHRI EXTENSION,
MYSURU CITY 3 570 001.
... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. A.N.RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE]
AND
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MANDI POLICE,
MYSURU.
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE 3 560 001.
2.
SMT.SUSHMA PRIYADARSHINI,
W/O GOVINDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3808,
NEW NO.17/1, 3RD MAIN,
2
THILAKNAGARA,
MYSURU CITY 3 570 001.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED]
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2017
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL I CIVIL JUDGE, MYSURU
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3 AND 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
PROHIBITION OF CHARGING EXORBITANT INTEREST ACT, 2004.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
proceedings
in
C.C.No.4396/2017
registered
for
offences
punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition
of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 and Sections 5 and 39
of the Karnataka Money-Lenders Act, 1961.
The petitioner is accused No.3 in the case at hand.
Accused
Nos.1
and
had
approached
this
Court
in
Crl.P.No.2710/2018 against whom the very offences were alleged
in the very same crime. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by an
order dated 14.02.2020 has allowed the petition and quashed
3
the proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 2. A Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.2710/2018 dated 14.02.2020,
has held as follows:
<4.
The facts leading to the case are that
respondent
No.2
registered
a
case
on
06.08.2015 alleging that the accused persons
were doing chit transaction and requested the
respondent/complainant to join for the same
and further stated that they would give
money to her and she can give it to others for
interest and to return etc. It is further alleged
that
accordingly,
respondent/complainant
used to receive amount from accused Nos.1
and 2 and used to give amount to others on
interest through pronote. It is further alleged
that
petitioners
gave
Rs.1,00,000/-
for
interest and at the time of returning the
same,- 4 - complainant9s father was suffering
with heart ailment and she could not able to
return the same in time hence, petitioners
quarreled with respondent/complainant and
her family members. She has given three
blank cheques for security and has also paid
Rs.1,00,000/- towards due amount and the
4
same has been en-cashed on 09.08.2014. It
is further alleged that in order to get illegal
gain, on 26.12.2014 they have got filled the
cheque for Rs.3,20,000/- and instituted a
case and also received the summons for
charging exorbitant interest. On the basis of
the complaint, a case has been registered and
after investigation, a charge sheet has been
filed.
5.
It is the contention of the learned
counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2
that as per Section 5 of the Karnataka
Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest
Act, 2004 aggrieved person, who claimed to
have been charged with exorbitant interest
has to- 5 - approach the Jurisdictional Court
by filing a petition under Section 5 of the Act
and seek redressal about his grievances.
Instead of doing so, in the present case
respondent/complainant
has
filed
a
complaint before the police in violation of
Section 5 of the said Act. It is his further
submission that the entire proceedings which
have been initiated and the charge sheet filed
is nothing but an abuse of process of law.
5
Further it is submitted that already the
proceedings have been initiated under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
and only with an intention to take revenge,
the present compliant has been filed. It is his
further submission that already this Court
under similar facts and circumstances of the
case has allowed the petition in W.P.
No.29499/2017
dated
06.01.2020
and
quashed
the
proceedings.
Prayed
to
proceedings. Allow the petition On these
grounds, he and to quash the proceedings.
6. Per contra, learned High Court
Government Pleader vehemently argued and
submitted that in pursuance of information
given to the police, a case has been
registered. However, he fairly submits that in
pursuance of Section 5 of the Act, the
aggrieved person ought to have filed a private
complaint, but instead of filing a private
complaint, the information has been given to
the police. On these grounds, he prayed to
dismiss the petition.
6
7.
I have carefully and cautiously
gone through the submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for both the parties
and perused the records.
8. On going through the records, it
indicates the basis of information given by
respondent/complainant,
police
have
registered a case and after investigation the
charge sheet has been filed. Section 15 of the
Karnataka Money-Lenders Act,