- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:873 CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7735 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MR RANJITH NAREN @ MICHAEL S/O GANGADHARA KURUF AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.21 KRISHNA NIVAS, 2ND B CROSS VIJAYA BANK COLONY HORAMAVU, BENGALURU-560043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.S. SHANKAR - ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTY NAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001. 2. SRI H. LAKSHMINARAYANA PRASAD WORKING AS POLICE INSPECTOR HENNUR POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJESH P - HCGP) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.55321/2016 PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED X ADDL. CMM, Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:873 CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024 MAYOHALL UNIT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 120B OF IPC R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 12(1)(B) OF INDIAN PASSPORT ACT, 1967; 2) QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET / FINAL REPORT DATED 10.05.2016 FILED IN C.C.NO.55321/2016 ANNEXURE-B FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 120B OF IPC R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 12(1)(B) OF INDIAN PASSPORT ACT, 1967; 3) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2024, ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE LEARNED X-ADDL. CMM, MAYO HALL UNIT AT BENGALURU ON APPLICATION FOR DISCHARGE IN C.C.NO.55321/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION. THIS CRL.P., COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner / Accused No.3 has filed this petition seeking to i) quash the proceedings in C.C.No.55321/2016 pending against him ii) to quash the final report dated 10.05.2016 in C.C.No.55321/2016 Annexure-“B” and iii) to set aside the order dated 03.02.2024 Annexure-“F” on the file of the X Addl. CMM, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:873 CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024 2. Heard the learned counsel Shri H.S. Shankar for the petitioner / Accused No.3 and the learned HCGP Shri P. Thejesh for the State. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co- accused No.2 namely Vimalchand Sandeep Gadia, had filed a petition in Crl.P.No.3556/2017, which came to be allowed by order dated 24.11.2020 vide Annexure-“G” and the case against him in C.C.No.55321/2016 arising out of Cr.No.70/2016 came to be quashed. The offences related to Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 120B read with Section 149 of the IPC, besides Section 12(1)(B) of the Indian Passports Act, 1967. Hence, he submits that the case of the present petitioner may also be considered on the same footing as that of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3556/2017. 4. The petitioner herein is arraigned as Accused No.3 in Crime No.70/2016 of Ramamurthynagar P.S. as per the charge sheet. The second respondent who was the Police Inspector of Hennur Police Station, had filed a complaint on 08.12.2016 alleging human trafficking of minor children by creating forged documents on the allegation that the petitioner had attempted to help human trafficking from India to USA. Based on the said - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:873 CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024 allegations, an FIR in Cr.No.70/2016 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120 of IPC and Section 12(1)(B) of the Passports Act, 1967. Subsequent to filing of the FIR, the Police Inspector investigated the case and filed charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons in C.C.No.55321/2016 wherein the petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.3. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the allegation against the petitioner is that he had misused the name of his wife and obtained Birth Certificate to the children and further alleged that Accused No.3 took the help of other co-accused for human trafficking of the above said children from India to USA, it is contented that there is no allegation in the complaint against the petitioner but it is subsequently that the petitioner’s name has been falsely implicated as Accused No.3. Hence, it is contended that the respondent / police, without proper investigation or proper application of mind, have registered an FIR against the petitioner. 6. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner / Accused No.3 has no direct or indirect - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:873 CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024 relationship with any other accused. Further, the words ‘sufficient ground for proceedings’, is not appearing as per the charge sheet. It is contented that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is not proper and as such, the cognizance is liable to be set aside in view of the fact that the same is passed on a wrong appreciation of facts and allegations, without any prima facie involvement of the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel further points out to the order of this Court in Crl.P.No.3556/2017 dated 24.11.2020 wherein this Court has quashed the charge sheet filed against Accused No.2 in C.C.No.55321/2016 and submits that the allegations against the present petitioner and Accused No.2 are one and the same and hence submits that the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner as well requires to be quashed. 8. It is submitted that even on merits, the prosecution has failed to make out a case against the petitioner / Accused No.3 for human trafficking. It is further contented that complaint has not been registered by an aggrieved person and it is only suo moto that Respondent No.1 has registered a complaint against the petitioner. If in fact the petitioner has - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:873 CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024 done any act of human trafficking, the aggrieved person would have registered a complaint against him, but till date, there is not even a single allegation made against the petitioner so far. 9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R.P. KAPOOR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB (AIR 1960 SC 866), wherein it is held that, the allegation in the First Information Report or the complaint which was registered by the police, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the offences alleged. Where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly failed to prove the charges, then power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ought to be applied. Hence, he contends that the reliance of the above judgment ought to be applied and he prays this court to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against this accused. 10. On all these grounds, learned counsel prays this court for exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and thereby to quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated against the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:873 CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024 petitioner / Accused No.3 in C.C.No.55321/2016 arising in Cr.No.70/2016 of Hennur Police Station. 11. On the other hand, learned HCGP for the State has taken me through the charge-sheet laid by the I.O. relating to the offences lugged against this accused in Cr.No.70/2016 for the offences under the IPC, 1860 and so also for the offences under Section 12(1)(B) of the Indian Passports Act, 1967. There is no dispute that charge-sheet has been laid against the accused. Hence, quashing this case at this stage does not arise, as the accused is required to face trial for the alleged offences of human trafficking along with the co-accused. Merely because the case as against the co-accused No.2 has been quashed, the same cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings as against the present accused as well. On this premise, the learned HCGP for the State is seeking to dismiss the petition, as there is no justifiable ground in this petition for discharging the accused from the alleged offences. 12. In the backdrop of the contentious contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner / Accused No.3 as well as the counter contentions of the learned HCGP for the State, it is relevant to state that the Police Inspector registered a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:873 CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024 complaint with the second respondent – police against the accused and others in Cr.No.70/2016, for offences of human trafficking of minor children from India to USA by creating fake documents as Passport and Visa. But it is to be noticed that there is no specific overt act attributed against the present petitioner / Accused No.3 for he having involved in human trafficking with other co-accused by forging documents. Further, there is no specific complaint filed by an aggrieved person and FIR is initiated only on a suo moto complaint. It is this circumstance that requires to be considered for exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. If there is any miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of law, certainly it requires to be interfered with. If not, there shall be some miscarriage of justice to the gravamen of the allegation made in the complaint. Therefore, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. L.Muniswamy and others reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489, wherein, the relevant portion reads thus: “In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:873 CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024 process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court’s has inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.” 13. The ratio of the said reliance is squarely applicable to the present case on hand, wherein the I.O. has laid the charge- sheet against this accused in C.C.No.55321/2016 arising out of Cr.No.70/2016. It is true that charge-sheet has been laid against the accused as contemplated under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. by following all requirements. But the substance in the charge-sheet cannot be said that there is a specific role made by the petitioner along with the other accused. For this reason, it is said that the petitioner is deserving to seek quashing of the entire criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.55321/2016. The further circumstance that the petition filed by the co-accused namely, Accused No.2 also having been - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:873 CRL.P No. 7735 of 2024 allowed and the proceedings against him having been quashed, the case of the present petitioner who also stands on a similar footing, requires consideration. 14. Consequently, the petition is hereby allowed and the case in C.C.No.55321/2016 arising out of Cr.No.70/2016 which is pending before the Court of the X ACMM, Bengaluru City, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner / Accused No.3 is concerned. 15. However, any observation made in this order shall not influence the mind of the Trial Court while disposing of the case in respect of the other accused. The case against the other accused shall be disposed of on merits, in accordance with law. SD/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE KS