Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
J. M. Khazi, J
Yallappa Sham Managutakar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiating criminal proceedings requires proper jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. insufficient evidence warrants quashing of charges. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. details of complaint show alleged fraudulent investments. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. distinction between regulated and unregulated deposit schemes. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. prima facie case established against petitioners. (Para 12 , 58) |
| 6. petitions dismissed; proceedings to continue. (Para 59) |
CAV COMMON ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)
In these two petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C , accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively have sought for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Spl.C.No.197/2022 on the file of Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, for the offences punishable in Sections 406 and 420 IPC and Section 21 (1)(2) and (3) of The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 ('BUDS Act' for short).
2. While Crl.P.No.102510/2023 is filed by accused No.1, Crl.P.No.100048/2024 is filed by accused No.2.
3. Since these two petitions are arising out of the same case, they are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order.
4. In support of the petition, the petitioners have conten
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
