Facts
The petitioner challenged the charge sheet and proceedings in C.C. No. 9006/2022, arising from FIR No. 66/2020 registered by Thilak Park Police Station for offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Source reference: pp. 2–3, para. 3The charge sheet alleged that the petitioner introduced the complainant to co-accused in connection with a purported “T-COIN” investment scheme, and received three payments totalling ₹1,50,000 from the complainant.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 4–8The petitioner sought quashing on the grounds that Tumakuru police and Magistrate lacked territorial jurisdiction, that he had no connection with T-COIN, and that Sections 406 and 420 IPC could not apply together.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 10–12The Court did not issue notice to respondent No. 2.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2Issues
1. Whether the FIR, investigation, charge sheet, and cognizance could be challenged for want of territorial jurisdiction of Thilak Park Police Station and the Tumakuru Magistrate.
Source reference: pp. 5–7, paras. 10, 15, 18–202. Whether the petitioner’s asserted lack of connection with T-COIN and the contention that Sections 406 and 420 IPC could not apply together warranted quashing at this stage.
Source reference: pp. 5–6, paras. 11–12; p. 7, para. 16Law Applied
The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Source reference: p. 2The alleged offences were under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.
Source reference: pp. 2, 4, para. 9The Court applied the principle that a quashing petition is not an occasion to conduct a mini-trial where the charge-sheet materials disclose prima facie grounds to proceed; disputed matters of defence and the evidentiary basis for the alleged offences may be tested at trial.
Source reference: pp. 6–9, paras. 14, 21–26No judicial precedent was cited.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The Court found that the complainant resided in Sadashivanagar, Tumakuru, within the territorial jurisdiction of Thilak Park Police Station, and held that the police registration and the jurisdictional Magistrate’s cognizance could not be faulted on territorial grounds.
Source reference: p. 7, paras. 18–20The charge-sheet materials also showed an inflow of ₹1,50,000 from the complainant’s account into the petitioner’s account.
Source reference: pp. 7–9, paras. 21–26The petitioner’s alleged connection to T-COIN, the circumstances and purpose of the payments, and the contention concerning the two IPC offences were matters for trial; resolving them at the quashing stage would amount to a mini-trial.
Source reference: pp. 7–9, paras. 21–26Holding
The Court rejected the territorial-jurisdiction challenge and declined to quash the proceedings, leaving the petitioner’s factual defences and the question of the offences ultimately made out to be considered at trial.
The writ petition was dismissed.
Source reference: p. 9, para. 27Acts & Sections Cited
4 provisions across 2 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231
Indian Penal Code, 18603
Original Court PDF
MR. SALAHUDDIN KHANvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
