IMAM S/O SIKANDAR NADAF v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

3

3. Brief facts of the case is as under :-

Sri Mohammed Rabbani lodged a complaint contending that he is running a hotel in Afzalpur and acquainted with one Chandrakant. The said Chandrakant introduced his friends Mahimood who is a hostel warden, Tamajid and Nagaraj told the complainant that Mohimood and Tamajid got jobs in different departments to many general public and they would get a job of First Division Assistant in Government Department. He also told that to get a job, they have to spent a sum of Rs.13 lakhs and out of the said amount, Rs.2 lakhs was taken. Due to greed to get job of First Division Assistant, he agreed to pay the amount. Said Chandrakant introduced Mohimood, Tamajid and Nagaraj in Kalaburagi bus stand and after month, when he spoke to them, they demanded Rs.13 lakhs for getting the job. The complainant believed them and he also got them introduce to Sharatkumar, Sureshkumar and Satish, who were also aspirants to get the job. On 24.02.2018 at about 5.30 p.m. near Kamal Hotel, all of them paid money to Mohimmod, Tamajid and Nagaraj and

4

they assured that on the next day, they would provide the answer sheets to the questions of FDA examination and went away. On 25.02.2018, they went near Kamal Hotel but when the examination time approached, none of them came there and when they made calls to the mobile telephones of them, the telephones were switched off. Thereafter, they realized that they have been cheated by the said persons and prayed for taking action in the matter. On the strength of the said complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.19/2018 and after thorough investigation, filed charge sheet including the present petitioner.

4. It is contended that present petitioner is not a FIR named accused and during the course of investigation, police have found that this petitioner is also involved in the incident and therefore, he has been arraigned as accused No.14 in the matter. The charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 409, 417, 418, 420, 120-B, 379, 201, 166, 109 read with

5

Section 34 of IPC and also under the provisions of KPSC Examination Malpractice Act. The matter is now pending before the V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi in C.C.No.3225/2018.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Smt.Anuradha M. Desai vehemently contended that based on the material collected by the investigation agency, present petitioner has been arraigned as additional accused No.14, who is not named an accused in the FIR and therefore, the strong materials must have been found by the investigation agency to arraign the present petitioner as an additional accused and in Column No.17 of the charge sheet, no such specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner so as to arraign him as an additional accused and therefore, sought for allowing the petition.

6. She also contended that even according to the materials collected by the investigation agency, the present petitioner was in fact writing the examination and

6

if he was found in examination hall writing the examination, how could he be present in the hotel for the purpose of providing the answer sheets to the aspirants is a lacuna in the case of the prosecution and therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the present petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law.

7. She further contended that the petitioner has been made as an accused only on the basis of the extra judicial confession made by other accused, which is a weak piece of evidence and therefore, based on such confession statement, the trial against the accused/petitioner cannot be proceeded and sought for allowing the petition.

8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader contended that in a matter of this nature, exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not at all permissible. He pointed out that by the action of the accused persons, the deserving candidates are denied the job in the Government organization. He also contended that the prosecution especially has invoked Section 120-B

7

of IPC, individual overt acts loses its significance and each and every accused need not know the entire design of the conspiracy and investigation agency having collected the necessary materials, has rightly arraigned the petitioner as accused No.14 and therefore, petition is to be rejected. He also contended that this Court at this stage cannot hold a mini trial to thrash out the merits or demerits of the matter and the prima facie materials collected by the investigation agency especially the mobile telephone seized and the call records do indicate that the petitioner is also involved in the alleged offences and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

9. In the light of the arguments putforth by the parties, this Court perused the records meticulously.

10. The investigation agency after registering the case had thoroughly investigated the matter and found material against the petitioner also and therefore, arraigned him as an additional accused No.14 while filing the charge sheet.

8

11. Complaint averments do indicate the sketch made by the accused persons named in the FIR to deceive the people. Subsequently the investigation agency on thorough investigation has collected the call details of the accused persons who were named in the FIR and by virtue of such call details, the present petitioner/accused person is also enquired. However, on such enquiry, the investigation agency found that the present accused is also involved in the incident. Whether at all the present accused was very much present inside the examination hall and was writing the examination or not cannot be decided by this court and it is for the trial court to record a finding after full-fledged trial about the defence taken by the accused.

12. Suffice to say that this court having regard to the scope of Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot make an enquiry into the merits of the matter in detail as rightly contended by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

9

13. Accordingly, desisting holding a mini trial, this court is of the considered opinion that the material on record do not permit the accused/petitioner to take shelter under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in getting quashing the further proceedings pending in C.C.No.3225/2018.

14. However, at this stage, Smt.Anuradha Desai contended that the charge-sheet came to be filed in the year 2018 and the trial has not progressed. Since the incident is of the year 2018 and charge-sheet is also filed, keeping note of the fact that speedy disposal is the right of the accused, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and dispose of the main matter on or before 31.12.2022.

15. Needles to emphasize that parties shall cooperate for the same. However having regard to the magnitude of the case, if the trial is not completed on or before 31.12.2022 the trial Judge may seek for extension of time. Hence, the following :

ORDER

Petition is dismissed.

10

The trial Judge is directed to expedite the trial and complete the same on or before 31.12.2022. The observation made during the course of the order shall not influence the trial Judge in considering the matter on merits.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Srt/sn