Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5565 (KAR)

SIDDABATTAM S/O SAI BHASKAR REDDY v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/101670/2024 · 2025-01-29

Hemant Chandangoudar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1798 CRL.P No. 101670 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101670 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SIDDABATTAM S/O. SAI BHASKAR REDDY AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 316 ALAMPALLY ROAD, WARD NO.6, VIKARABAD, ANDHRA PRADESH-501101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VITTHAL S.TELI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PSI KHANAPUR STATION, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER PWD, TAL. KHANAPUR, SANJEEV S/O. JAGADISH KULKARNI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT ENGINEER PWD, R/O. KHANAPUR, DIST. BELAGAVI-591302. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN KHANAPUR PS CRIME NO.87/2024 (KHANAPUR PS NCR NO.84/2024) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 98 OF THE KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KHANAPUR AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MAY BE DIRECTED RELEASE THE AMOUNT SEIZED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.01 13:32:29 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1798 CRL.P No. 101670 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, has approached this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that during the subsistence of the Model Code of Conduct for the Karnataka Lok Sabha Elections–2024, the Vigilance Officer intercepted a bus in which the petitioner was traveling. Upon inspection, it was discovered that the petitioner was carrying a sum of ₹5 lakhs, for which he allegedly failed to provide proper accounting. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent. 4. The petitioner is being prosecuted solely on the ground that he failed to account for the money carried during the Model Code of Conduct. Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act states that any person who is found in possession of, conveys, offers for sale, or pawns any property that there is reason to believe is stolen or fraudulently obtained shall, upon failure to satisfactorily account for such possession or act before the Magistrate, be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to three months. 5. In the present case, the petitioner, a resident of Hyderabad, was traveling from Goa to Belagavi. The petitioner has annexed a copy of his bank account statement, which establishes that he had withdrawn ₹2 lakhs on 02.02.2024, while the remaining amount was collected in Andhra Pradesh in connection with his construction business. Furthermore, the prosecution has failed to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1798 CRL.P No. 101670 of 2024 produce any material to substantiate that the money seized from the petitioner was stolen or fraudulently obtained, thereby failing to satisfy an essential element required to constitute an offence under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act. 6. The offence under Section 98 of the Karnataka Police Act is non-cognizable, and as per Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., prior permission from the Magistrate is essential before conducting an investigation. In the present case, the learned Magistrate permitted the investigation without assigning any reasons. Therefore, the permission granted does not satisfy the requirements of Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No. 87/2024, registered by Khanapur Police Station, is hereby quashed. The respondent is directed to release the seized amount of ₹5 lakhs to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 4