SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top