- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2539 CRL.P No. 3770 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3770 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SMT. KRISHNA KUMARI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS W/O ANAND RAI KAMATH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.27, 13TH CROSS VYALIKAVAL, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REP. S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.87/2017 ON THE FILE OF 56TH A.C.M.M., BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 7 OF SPECIFIED BANK NOTES (CESSATION OF LIABILITIES) ACT 2017. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2539 CRL.P No. 3770 of 2017 ORAL ORDER Petitioner - accused No.1 in Crime No.87 of 2017 of Girinagar Police Station, pending on the file of the learned 56th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and under Section 7 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, suo moto complaint came to be registered in Crime No.87 of 2017 of Girinagar Police Station by the Police Officer alleging commission of offences against accused Nos.1 and 2. It is alleged that on 30.03.2017, the petitioner was found in possession of demonetized currency notes worth Rs.26,54,500/- i.e., of Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- denominations. Since the currency notes were already demonetized, the petitioner is said to have committed the offences as stated above. On registration of FIR, the petitioner approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against her. An interim order of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2539 CRL.P No. 3770 of 2017 stay was granted and therefore, no investigation was undertaken. 3. Heard Sri Siddharth Suman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent. Perused the materials on record. 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 5. It is the contention of the prosecution that the petitioner was found in possession of currency notes of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- denominations worth Rs.26,54,500/- on 30.03.2017. Even though the currency notes were demonetized with effect from 08.11.2016, learned counsel for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2539 CRL.P No. 3770 of 2017 the petitioner places reliance on the Notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) dated 31.12.2016 extending the facility for exchange of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) during grace period to the Indian citizens who have not availed the facility of exchange of SBNs at the earlier facility, as they were not present in the Country during 10.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. Therefore, they were permitted to avail the facility through five of the offices of Reserve Bank i.e., Mumbai, New Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata and Nagpur. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that she is the travel agent and she has traveled to Bali and returned back only on 01.12.2016 and again gone to Dubai and returned back on 24.01.2017. However, she was in possession of demonetized currency notes worth Rs.26,54,500/- which were paid by her customers. On 30.03.2017, she was proceeding to Chennai for the purpose of exchanging the demonetized currency notes with the RBI, Chennai. But in the meantime, she was apprehended. The Notification referred to above permits the citizen of India who have gone abroad during the period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and they were given the grace period for exchanging the demonetized currency notes till - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2539 CRL.P No. 3770 of 2017 31.03.2017. But the incident in the present case is said to have occurred on 30.03.2017 when the petitioner is said to be in possession of demonetized currency notes valued at Rs.26,54,500/-. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is covered by the grace period provided under the Notification dated 31.12.2016 issued by RBI. 7. FIR came to the registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. None of the ingredients that are required to invoke Section 420 of IPC are suggested in the first information. There is no reason to invoke the criminal provision. If Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC is not invoked, Section 7 of the Specified Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, would not remain as admittedly, Section 7 of the Act is a non-cognizable offence and the complainant was not referred to the Magistrate for seeking permission as required under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, registration of FIR is bad in law. 8. In view of the above, I am of opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2539 CRL.P No. 3770 of 2017 be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No.87 of 2017 of Girinagar Police Station, pending on the file of the learned 56th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 7 of Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, is hereby quashed against the petitioner. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24