SANGAMESH HIREMATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent no.2 though served with the notice remained absent and there is no representation. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1, it is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) Brief facts as narrated in the petition are that respondent nos.2 and 3 are the husband and wife. They had executed an agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner by accepting an advance sale consideration of Rs.16 lakhs. Later they had executed a sale deed in favour of Smt. Chandrakala Aili and Smt.Annapurna. The petitioner after coming to know the said fact has filed a civil suit in O.S. No. 27/2015. In view of these facts, the respondent no.2 lodged a complaint before the respondent no.1 alleging that the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 and subsequently the present petitioner applied for bail and was released on bail. Hence, by filing the present petition, the petitioner is seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him.

(3.) I have heard arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1-State. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that, even if the allegations made in the complaint of the complainant are accepted as true, even then there a proper procedure to be followed under law. According to the said procedure, action ought to have been taken against the present petitioner which is not done in this case. In violation of the said procedure directly the Police, however, conducted the raid and seized some material and also arrested the present petitioner. Hence, learned counsel submitted that the act of the first respondent-Police in registering the criminal complaint against the present petitioner is directly in utter violation of the provisions of law. Hence, he submitted to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.