Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19427
CRL.P No. 2162 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2162 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMED IMRAN
S/O MOHAMMED AHMED
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/O NO.93, K.H.B. MAIN ROAD,
RD ND
3 CROSS, 2 MAIN ROAD,
NEAR MORE, RANKA NAGAR,
R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
J.C.NAGAR POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. POLICE INSPECTOR
HOMICIDE AND BURGLARY SQUAD
CITY CRIME BRANCH,
N.T.PET, BENGALURU-560 002.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally
signed by
HEMALATHA
J
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2)
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19427
CRL.P No. 2162 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING
NO.59/2017 DATED 02.04.2017 ALONG WITH INFORMATION
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 J.C.NAGAR POLICE
WHEREIN, THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED
NO.12 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S.420 OF IPC AND SECTION
7 OF THE SPECIFIED BANK NOTES (CESSATION OF LIABILITIES)
ACT, 2017 AND SECTION 41(D), 102 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CODE, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS CONCERNED, (ANNEXURE
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND A1 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the registration of an FIR in
Crime No.59/2017 by the respondent No.1 for the offences
punishable under Section 420 of IPC, Sections 41(D), 102 of
Cr.P.C. and Section 7 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of
Liabilities) Act, 2017 pending on the file of the I Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. It appears from the information which is the basis
of the FIR in Crime No.59/2017 that the respondent No.2
received credible information that some persons were in
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19427
CRL.P No. 2162 of 2019
HC-KAR
possession of demonetized currency with an intent to exchange
it. Based on such information, a raid was conducted and it was
found that the petitioner herein along with other accused were
in possession of demonetized Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- currency
notes whose face value was a sum of Rs.9,10,00,000/-. The
demonetized notes were then seized and a case in Crime
No.59/2017 was registered for the aforesaid offences.
3. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the
petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.12 has filed this
petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the respondent No.2 soon after getting information, ought
to have drawn a FIR and thereafter, must have taken up
investigation. He contends that contrarily, it is stated that the
information was received and thereafter, the respondent No.2
conducted a raid and later, the respondent No.1 registered an
FIR at 01.10 a.m. on 02.04.2017. He contends that this
procedure adopted by the respondent No.1 falls foul of the
procedure prescribed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. State of U.P. [2014 (2) SCC 1] .
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19427
CRL.P No. 2162 of 2019
HC-KAR
Hence, he contends that the FIR drawn against the petitioner is
vitiated. This apart, he contends that the respondent No.1 has
registered an FIR for an offence punishable under Section 420
of IPC though there was no entrustment of the demonetized
currency. He therefore, submits that the respondent No.1 has
registered an FIR only to overcome the provisions of Section
155(2) of Cr.P.C. He contends that the only offence that was
made out was an offence under Section 7 of the Specified Bank
Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017, which can be visited
with a sentence of fine and therefore, is a non-cognizable
offence and hence, the respondent No.1 without following the
procedure under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, could not have
proceeded with the registration of the crime.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondents after perusing the information furnished by the
respondent No.2 submitted that the fact that the petitioner and
other accused were holding demonetized currency notes whose
face value was Rs.9,10,00,000/- shows that they had intent to
exchange it and thereby unjustly enriched themselves. Thus,
he contends that an offence under Section 420 of IPC was
made out. He also contends that since an offence under Section
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19427
CRL.P No. 2162 of 2019
HC-KAR
420 of IPC is cognizable, the procedure under Section 155(2) of
Cr.P.C. need not be complied with even though the offence
under Section 7 of the Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of
Liabilities) Act, 2017 is non-cognizable.
6. I have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned High Court
Government Pleader for the respondents.
7. A perusal of the information furnished by
respondent No.2 shows that the petitioner and other accused
were purportedly having demonetized currency notes whose
face value was a sum of Rs.9,10,00,000/-. It is alleged that the
petitioner and other accused intended to exchange these
currencies for valid currency notes and that the respondent
No.2 conducted a raid and seized the notes. As rightly
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, soon after
the respondent No.2 came to know of information that the
petitioner and other accused were in possession of demonetized
notes, the least that could have been done was to enter in the
Station House diary and thereafter, he must have taken steps
to conduct a raid. The fact that the respondents have
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19427
CRL.P No. 2162 of 2019
HC-KAR
conducted a raid and thereafter, registered an FIR against the
petitioner and other accused goes to show that the procedure
prescribed Under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. is violated. In that view
of the matter, the FIR registered against the petitioner stands
vitiated. In addition, as rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.1 could not have
invoked Section 420 of IPC as there was no entrustment of the
demonetized currency to anyone including the petitioner and
other accused. At the most, an offence under Section 7 of the
Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017 may
have been committed which can be visited with a sentence of
fine and therefore, is a non-cognizable offence. It thus appears
that the respondent No.1 in order to overcome the requirement
of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. has invoked Section 420 of IPC.
Hence, the impugned FIR drawn against the petitioner warrants
interference.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed . The FIR drawn
against the petitioner by the respondent No.1 in Crime
No.59/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 420 of
IPC, Sections 41(D), 102 of Cr.P.C. and Section 7 of the
Specified Bank Notes (Cessation of Liabilities) Act, 2017,
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:19427
CRL.P No. 2162 of 2019
HC-KAR
pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed.
9. It is made clear that the investigation against the
other accused may continue and the demonetized currency
shall not be released to the accused but shall be sent to the
Reserve Bank of India. The accused may be entitled to the
replaced currency notes subject to they filing appropriate
returns before concerned Income Tax officer.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16