CRL.P/2438/2020 of N S RAMESH Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 29 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against this petitioner in Cr.No.27/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 (for short ‘the Act of 2004’) pending on the file of 44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

HC-KAR

3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a permanent resident of Bengaluru and he is working in a Dynamic Engineering Factory established by his brother S. Prakash Babu since 10 years. Earlier, the factory was established at Rajagopalanagara and subsequently, factory was shifted to 8th Cross, Magadi Road, Bengaluru. It is submitted that petitioner is doing the sales of machineries and also reconditioning of CNC and VNC machineries. The petitioner is not doing any financial business. On the false information, the first respondent has sent the report dated 03.02.2018 to the second respondent to register a case against the petitioner under Section 3 and 4 of the Act of 2004 and also for the IPC offences.

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there cannot be any criminal prosecution by the police and the same is totally illegal and against Section 15 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act of 1961’). Hence, the very initiation of FIR that is set in motion is against Section 15 of the Act of 1961. The same could be registered only by the Registrar or Assistant Registrar or any

HC-KAR

Officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf enter into the premises of the petitioner to require the production of records, all documents. The counsel also would submit that when there is non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C without registering the FIR, without making the entry of the information received in the diary kept in the concerned police station and when the offence was non- cognizable, very initiation of the case is erroneous.

5. The counsel in support of his arguments, relies upon the judgment of this Court dated 22.06.2017 passed in Crl.P.No.101569/2016 and connected matters and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.10 wherein this Court discussed with regard to the powers of authorized officer to require production of records or documents and power of entry, inspection and seizure and also taken note of Section 5 of said Act with regard to deposit of Money and presentation of petition to court and the procedure thereof and allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings as prayed in the petition.

6. The counsel appearing for the State would submit that under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C in respect of non-

HC-KAR

cognizable offences are concerned, the allegation made against the petitioner is not only the non-cognizable offences but also the offences under the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 and those offences are cognizable offences. However, counsel fairly submits with regard to powers vested with the Registrar and Assistant Registrar or Officers authorized by the Government and no such authorization is given.

7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material on record. Considering the grounds urged in the petition as well as the registration of the case by the complainants without any authority is against Section 15 of the Act of 1961 as held by this Court in the judgment referred supra which is relied upon by the petitioner and powers are given to Registrar or Assistant Registrar or authorized persons. When such powers are given to them, without any authorization, the question of registration of the case does not arise. Hence, committed an error in registering the case without any authority. Thus, the registration of the case against the petitioner is not sustainable

HC-KAR

in the eye of law and the same is covered by the judgment of this Court referred supra by the counsel for the petitioner himself.

8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed

The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Cr.No.27/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 pending on the file of 44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru is hereby quashed. The liberty is given to the concerned to proceed in accordance with law in view of the observation.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

SN