Allowed

Balakuntal Krishnaiah Seshadri v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Sept 2016CRL.P/8139/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings initiated against petitioners in a complaint alleging fraud regarding a property mortgage dispute, holding that the case was a mere surplusage intended to harass and involved no criminal element.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings pending before the court below in C.C.No.24352/2015 are quashed.

Balakuntal Krishnaiah Seshadri Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8139 OF 2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Balakuntal Krishnaiah Seshadri @ B.K.Seshadri, Aged about 67 years, Son of late Mr. B.V.Krishnaiah, #35, 11 ‘A’ Cross, 6^th Main, J.P.Nagar Third Phase, Bangalore – 560 057.

¶9

Smt. Usha Rao, Aged about 63 years, Wife of Mr. M. Seethapathy Rao, #64, Old Veterinary Hospital Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore – 560 004.

¶10

Smt. Asha Prakash, Aged about 61 years, Wife of Late Mr. S. Suryaprakash, #102, Second Cross, J.P.Nagar 4^th Phase, Dollars Colony,

¶11

¶12

Bangalore – 560 078.

¶13

Ravi Chandra Kulur, Aged about 41 years, Son of Mr. K. Raghavendra Rao, #102, second cross, J.P.Nagar 4^th Phase, Dollars Colony, Bangalore – 560 078. 5. Smt. Sharmila Prakash, Aged about 35 years, Wife of Ravi Chandra Kulur, #102, Second Cross, J.P.Nagar 4^th Phase, Dollars Colony, Bangalore – 560 078. …PETITIONERS (By Shri S. Kashinath, Advocate)

¶14

AND:

¶15

State of Karnataka, Represented by Station House Officer, J.P.Nagar First Phase Police Station, Bangalore – 560 078.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(By Shri Chetan Desai, Government Pleader)

¶18

¶19

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the proceedings in

¶20

¶21

C.C.No.24352/2015 (crime No.232/2015) on the file of the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore so far as the petitioners are concerned.

¶22

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶25

learned Government Pleader.

¶26

One C. Venkatesh Babu, along with his father B.V.

¶27

Chayanatha Swamy Setty, borrowed a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/(Rupees one crore eighty lakh only) on the security of certain immovable property bearing No.283 situated at 26^th Cross, Banashankari II Stage, Bangalore, under a deed of mortgage dated 22.01.2010. It was a registered deed of mortgage and that the mortgagers had agreed to pay interest at 12% on the amount borrowed. The period of the mortgage was for five years commencing from 2010. The mortgaged property was in the occupation and possession of Chayanathaswamy Setty till his death in the year 2014 and after his death, Smt. P. Kasturi, his

¶28

¶29

widow and the complainant C. Venkatesh Babu are residing there. In addition to executing the mortgage deed, the complainant along with his father, had also executed a promissory note in favour of each of the petitioners and agreed to repay the amount with interest at 12% per annum. Though interest was paid irregularly, it was completely stopped in December 2012 and they have also breached the term of the mortgage in not seeking to repay the mortgage amount even after a lapse of five years. The petitioners therefore were constrained to approach the civil court and filed a civil suit in O.S.No.197/2015 in which the complainant has also entered appearance. It is thereafter that the complainant had chosen to lodge a criminal case making false allegations of the petitioners having defrauded him in persuading him to enter into a mortgage deed along with his father. It is this complaint which has been entertained by the court below and process having been served on the petitioners, the petitioners are before this court.

¶30

¶31

It is apparent that there is a civil case between the

¶32

parties and the criminal case on the face of it, is a mere surplusage intended only to harass the petitioners. The dispute, if any, in the civil suit could be adjudicated adequately. There is no element of criminality involved on the face of it.

¶33

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings

¶34

pending before the court below are quashed.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Balakuntal Krishnaiah Seshadri v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakuntal Krishnaiah Seshadri v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G R Venkateshwara Reddy Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha Police

Syed Iqbal Vs State of Karnataka

Sheikbabu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G R Chandrashekar Vs Smt Mamatha

David D Souza Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B.A. Paramesh Vs the State of Karnataka