- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:849 CRL.P No. 103532 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103532 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: MAHADEV KALLAPPA MUNGOLI @ NINGOLI, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: BEHIND LIC OFFICE, MAHALINGESHWAR NAGAR, TALUKA: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591 307. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASAD PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH GOKAK TOWN P.S. GOKAK REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD – 580 011. 2. ANISH GOPAL YARDI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: LAW PRACTITIONER, R/O: KILLA, TAL: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI- 591 307. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN SPECIAL CASE NO.87/2022 ARISING OUT OF GOKAK TOWN POLICE STATION IN ITS CRIME NO.132/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 420, R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC AND U/S 21, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:849 CRL.P No. 103532 of 2024 (1) (2) (3) AND 23 OF BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEMES ACT, 2019, SO FAR AS THE PRESENT PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Spl. Case No.87/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 21(1)(2)(3) and 23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Vijay Mohan Honakamble and another vs. State of Karnataka and others in Crl.P. No.101143/2022, disposed off on 17.08.2023, wherein the identical issues have been raised and have been answered in favour of the petitioner therein. This Court has held as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:849 CRL.P No. 103532 of 2024 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue in the subject lis is answered in the judgment rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar S/o. Gadeppa Khot & another Vs. the State of Karnataka & another in W.P. No.102888/2022, disposed off on 19th October 2022, wherein it is held as under: “The FIR is registered in Crime No.257/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 511 of IPC and Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Act” for short) alleging that accused Nos.1 and 4 induced the people to deposit money stating that the amount invested will be doubled and the said amount which is invested by the public have been utilized for own purpose and for other purposes and during the course of investigation, the petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3, as they were collecting the money from the public as agents of accused No.1. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Section 27 of the Act specifies that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:849 CRL.P No. 103532 of 2024 section except upon a complaint made by the Regulator. He further submits that the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act is one without authority of law. 3. The learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the petitioners having collected money illegally from the people, committed the aforesaid offences and the Police have registered the FIR and the same does not warrant any interference. 4. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. Section 7 of the Act, specifies that appropriate government shall, by notification, appoint one or more officers not below the rank of Secretary to that government, as the competent authority for the purpose of this Act. Section 8 specifies that the appropriate government shall, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, by notification, constitute one or more Courts known as the Designated Courts for such area or areas to deal with the matters to which the provisions of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act applies. Section 27 of the Act specifies that no Designated Court shall take cognizance of an - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:849 CRL.P No. 103532 of 2024 offence punishable under that section except upon a complaint made by the Regulator. 6. A conjoint reading of this provision indicates that the government shall first appoint a Regulator and thereafter designate a Court to deal with the matters to which the provisions of this Act apply and the Designated Court can take cognizance only on a complaint in writing made by the Regulator. 7. In the instant case, the Regulator has not filed a complaint before the Designated Court so as to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act. However, the Police have registered the FIR for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the registration of the FIR for the aforesaid offences is one without authority of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.257/2021 filed by the Chikkodi Police Station insofar it relates to accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed.” In the light of the issue standing answered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:849 CRL.P No. 103532 of 2024 aforesaid order, the petitioner is also entitled to the very same relief.” 3. Learned AGA would not dispute the position of law as is observed in the aforesaid case referred supra. 4. Therefore, for the reasons rendered therein, the subject petition also deserves to be succeed. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl. Case No.87/2022 qua the petitioner stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NAA/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17