w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Yellow Express Logistics Ltd., Rep. by Joju Thomas (Managing Director) & Another v/s The Deputy Commissioner & District Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District & Others

    Writ Petition No. 49709 of 2019 (GM – RES)

    Decided On, 18 October 2019

    At, High Court of Karnataka

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

    For the Petitioners: K.B. Monesh Kumar, Vijetha R. Naik, Advocates. For the Respondents: V.S. Vinayaka, HCGP.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.PC praying to quash the complaint dated 23.9.2019 produced as Annexure-L lodged by the R1 before the R3 and quash the FIR in Crime No.0143/2019 dated 25.9.2019 produced as Annexure-M pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala and all further proceedings thereunto.)1. In the instant petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the complaint dated 23.09.2019 produced as Annexure-L lodged by the I Respondent before the III Respondent.b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the FIR in Crime Number 0143/2019 dated 25.09.2019 produced as Annexure-M pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala and all further proceedings thereunto;c) Issue such other directions/orders considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.2. Perusal of Annexure-L dated 23.9.2019, Deputy Commissioner has sought investigation in respect of petitioners’ business on the allegations that there were certain discrepancies in the business like money transactions. Those allegations are as under:“KANNADA”3. Matter is at the stage of investigation. Therefore, no interference is called for. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 847 held as under:“9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought not to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents. A perusal of the complaint discloses that prima facie, offences that are alleged against the Respondents. The correctness or otherwise of the said allegations has to be decided only in the Trial. At the initial stage of issuance of process it is not open to the Courts to stifle the proceedings by entering into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the accused. Criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the acc

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

used are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.”4. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is crystal clear that it is premature to entertain the petitioners’ grievance.Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
O R