SIDDALINGESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 -State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Perused the records.

(2.) THE brief facts of case are that, the complainant by name Afrooz S/o. Moulasab Desai of Akkatangyarhalla, Gokak taluk Belgaum district has lodged a F.I.R. before Market Police, Belgaum, alleging that the accused persons by name Roshan Jameer Kutbuddin Pirajade and Shabhashkhan Nashirakhan Pathan have persuaded the complainant and other witnesses that they have a private company by name "V3 Infrastructures and Estate Pvt. Ltd.? and they are providing house plots to interested public by collecting monthly in monthly instalments. In this regard, it is alleged that complainant has paid an amount of Rs. 1,500/ - per month for a period of 48 months and inspite of that the accused persons have not made their efforts to provide any site to him and when the complainant and others have enquired they have come to know that their I.D. was blocked and the said accused persons have demanded an amount of Rs. 25,000/ - to re -open the I.D's. of complainant. It is further alleged that the said accused persons have cheated the complainant and others and on enquiry the accused persons have disclosed that some other officers have also involved in the cheating, the complainant and others were directed to approach the said officers. On the basis of said allegations police appears to have registered a case in Crime No. 366/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity). The remand application discloses that this petitioner was also arrested and interrogated and thereafter he was released on bail. In the remand application it is alleged that the petitioner herein is a Block Officer of said Company, but his role in the said Company and whether he is really a Block Officer or not, is not mentioned in the same. However, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has submitted that investigation is still in progress. Therefore, at this stage, on the basis of mere remand application and the complaint averments, one cannot draw any inference that petitioner has played any role as alleged by complainant. Therefore. I am of the opinion that entire report of police has to be looked into in order to ascertain whether the role of petitioner is there or not in cheating the complainant and others. At this stage, this Court cannot imagine whether the police would submit 'B' Final report or charge sheet against the petitioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that this petition has to be dismissed by reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, if any charge sheet is filed against him and also cognizance is taken against him by the jurisdictional Magistrate. With these observations, petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court, if advised, if the police submit any incriminating report to the Court in future and if any cognizance is taken against him.