Allowed

Smt. Savithri S N Prabhakar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2020CRL.P/4638/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner, accused No. 3, following an amicable settlement regarding property dispute allegations between the parties. The court held that continued trial would not serve the interests of justice.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C.No. 454/2006 against the petitioner/Accused No. 3.

Smt. Savithri S N Prabhakar Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

Crl..P.No.4638 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4638 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT.SAVITHRI S.N.PRABHAKAR, WIFE OF LATE SRI.PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.905, 180 PUBLIC HOSTEL ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA, MYSORE- 570 014.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.NANDAKUMAR C.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY POLICE INSPECTOR, NANJANGUD RURAL POLICE STATION, NANJANGUD – 571 325. REPRESENTED - S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 01.

¶14

V.S.KUMAR,

¶15

SON OF LATE CHELLA RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, GENERAL MANAGER (FINANCE) AND COMPANY SECRETARY, RAMAN BOARD LIMITED.

¶16

Crl..P.No.4638 of 2020

¶17

¶18

RESIDING AT NO.1494, OPPOSITE SRINIVASA MEDICAL STORE, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD, KRISHNAMURTHY PURAM, MYSORE – 570 004.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR STATE; SMT.VEENA H.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE SHEET AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.3) IN C.C.NO.454/2006 (CR.NO.347/2002) ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NANJANAGUDU.

¶22

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioner who is accused No.3 in C.C.No.454/2006 arising out of Crime No.34/2002

¶26

pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Nanjangudu is before this Court seeking for quashing of the said proceedings.

¶27

During the pendency of the said proceedings, the petitioner and respondent No.2 have amicably settled

¶28

Crl..P.No.4638 of 2020

¶29

¶30

the disputes. The petitioner and respondent No.2 are before this Court through video conference. The petitioner is identified by Sri. Raghunath Kadambi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is identified by his counsel Sri Ian Lewis, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶31

The parties have filed a joint memo containing that the terms of settlement.

¶32

The above proceedings have arisen on account of dispute as regards misappropriation of amount by late husband of accused No.3. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.15,414,165/had been misappropriated by the said late husband.

¶33

The petitioner is stated to have paid an amount of Rs.6,51,665/- to the company Raman Boards Limited in which the late husband of the petitioner was an employee. The said amount is acknowledged to have been received by respondent No.2 Mr. Kumar,

¶34

Crl..P.No.4638 of 2020

¶35

¶36

General Manager Finance of the Company. Sri. Kumar submits that on receipt of the said amount, there is no claim against the petitioner and company is not interested in prosecuting the matter against petitioner/accused No.3. Taking into consideration the terms of settlement which have been arrived, the allegations of misappropriation of amount being against the late husband and there being no particular allegation against the petitioner/accused No.3 made therein.

¶37

I am of the considered opinion that the continuance

¶38

of the criminal proceedings would not be in interest of justice by applying the principles of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another reported in AIR (2012) 10 SCC 303, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, J. Ramesh Kamath and Others Versus Mohana Kurup and Others reported in (2016) 12 SCC 179 and Srinivasan Iyenger and Another Versus Bimla Devi Agarwal and Others reported in (2019) 4

¶39

Crl..P.No.4638 of 2020

¶40

¶41

SCC 456 . Hence, proceedings in C.C.No.456/2006 arising out of Crime No.347/2002 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Nanjangudu, insofar as the petitioner/accused No.3 is concerned is quashed.

¶42

Accordingly, the petition is allowed .

¶43

In view of allowing the main petition, I.A.Nos.1 and 2

¶44

are disposed of .

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

SSD

Smt. Savithri S N Prabhakar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savithri S N Prabhakar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K Shivaram Vs Smt. Kamala Shivaram

Ameen Khan Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Krishnamurthy N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B P Kamaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sandeep Gupta Vs State of Karnataka

H M Rudrakumar Vs the State by Hosadurga