‘Clear case of harassing petitioners’: Karnataka HC quashes private complaint filed against Dharmasthala Rural Development Project trustees and directors

However, the trial court rejected the complaint on the grounds that Yerdoor was not a borrower, so he had no locus standi to lodge it, and that no prima facie case was made out.

Yerdoor then filed a revision petition before the sessions court, which allowed it, set aside the trial court and remanded the matter back to the trial court to consider afresh. This order was challenged by the petitioners before the High Court.

The petitioners argued that it is a well-known public charitable institution that facilitates individuals and self-help groups in obtaining loans in accordance with the government’s and the Reserve Bank of India’s policies and programmes, and that it has committed no illegal activity.

Further, they alleged that Yerdoor is a meddlesome interloper who is unnecessarily harassing them from carrying out their philanthropic activities, and that he has made several false complaints against the petitioners. This is one such attempt, and he has placed no reliable material on record to prove his claims, they added.

‘Complainant has failed to produce documents’

The bench noted that the only allegation made by the complainant against the petitioner No.1 or the Trust is that it is involved in lending money and collecting it back, in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, and the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interests Act.

“A mere allegation to that effect does not require a magistrate to issue a process to the accused. The same is required to be backed by relevant material,” the bench said.

Referring to the documents relied on by the complainant alleging the trust is charging higher interest rates than permitted under law, the court said, “Respondent No.1 (Rao) has not produced any document or provision of law to show what is the permissible rate of interest that can be charged by petitioner No 1. Further, Document No. 6, relied upon by respondent No.1, mentions that the interest of 18 to 9 per cent is charged on a declining basis, and all these documents are public documents and declared by petitioner No.1-Trust.”

Allowing the petition, the bench held that the “complainant has failed to produce documents relating to any one specific transaction of petitioner No.1-trust which is in violation of the law”. “He has merely collected certain documents which are available in the public domain that pertain to petitioner No.1, the Trust, and has made a complaint based on the same. He has failed to explain how those documents prima facie establish any criminal activity on the part of petitioner No.1 or its trustees.”

“It is a clear case of harassing the petitioners herein who are involved in charitable and philanthropic activities,” added the bench.