Allowed

Sri.S.Nagaraj v. the State by

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2021CRL.P/3000/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the FIR and criminal proceedings regarding extortion and cheating allegations. The Court held the matter was a civil dispute clothed as a criminal case based on a settlement, applying the principle from Gian Singh to grant relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No.153/2015 and consequential proceedings in C.C. No.158/2016 were quashed.

Sri.S.Nagaraj Vs the State by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.3000/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3000/2017

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI.S.NAGARAJ, S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA,

¶10

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶11

SMT.TRIPURAMBA

¶12

W/O S.NAGARAJ,

¶13

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶14

SRI N.SANTHOSH S/O S.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶15

SMT.N.SUPRIYA W/O RAJEEV, D/O S.NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶16

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SAI NANDANA RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS, PLAT NO.304, 11^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 56. PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI.S.SARAVANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND :

¶19

THE STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER JAYAPURA POLICE STATION

¶20

Crl.P.No.3000/2017

¶21

¶22

JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT 577 120

¶23

SRI K.A.ANILKUMAR, S/O K.MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT ANIL FARMS, MARATIKYATHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 577 301. … RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1 SMT.CHANDINI SINGH, ADV. FOR R.2.)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR IN CRIME NO.153/2015 COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.158/2016, REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II JMFC, MYSORE AT THE INSTANCE OF RESPONDENT, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 385, 448, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC.

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Heard.

¶29

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.158/2016 against the petitioners before the trial Court amount to abuse of the process of the Court?” is the question involved in this case.

¶30

On 24.11.2015 the second respondent filed complaint against the petitioners alleging that though

¶31

Crl.P.No.3000/2017

¶32

¶33

they entered into a development agreement executing general power of attorney, they started troubling him demanding additional amount of Rs.7 crores. He further alleged that in that background on 02.11.2015 at 9.00 a.m. the petitioners trespassed into his house, blackmailed him saying that if he does not pay additional sum of Rs.7 crores they will obstruct all his development activities over the property. It was further alleged that as another limb of such extortion, the petitioners issued paper publication that nobody should deal with the property in question.

¶34

On receiving such complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.153/2015 against the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 4) for the offences punishable under Sections 385, 448, 506 read with 34 IPC.

¶35

On investigation, the first respondent has charge sheeted the petitioners in the said case for the offences punishable under Sections 385, 448 and 506 read with 34 IPC.

¶36

Crl.P.No.3000/2017

¶37

¶38

On submission of such charge sheet, learned JMFC (II Court) Mysore by order dated 10.03.2016 has taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioners and registered the case in C.C.No.158/2016.

¶39

The petitioners have filed the above petition seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.153/2015 of the first respondent Police Station and the proceedings in C.C.No.158/2016 on the ground that the matter is a civil dispute and that is given the colour of criminal case only to harass the petitioners and to bring them to terms.

¶40

Admittedly the second respondent filed O.S.NO.725/2015 against the petitioners before the III Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Mysore in respect of the same dispute. In that suit, some interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioners. The second respondent challenged those orders in M.A.Nos.84 to 86/2016 and failed. Ultimately he filed W.P.No.24062/2017 (GM CPC) before this Court challenging the said protection

¶41

Crl.P.No.3000/2017

¶42

¶43

order. The copy of the order dated 19.11.2020 in W.P.No.24062/2017 shows that the petitioners and the second respondent entered into a settlement in the said case. Recording the said settlement this Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the compromise petition.

¶44

Clause 13 of the said settlement is that the second respondent herein withdraws the complaint in C.C.No.158/2016 and agrees to file memo to that effect in this petition for quashing the said complaint. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 concedes the settlement entered into in W.P.No.24062/2017.

¶45

The above facts and circumstances show

¶46

that the matter was purely a civil dispute between the parties and that was given the colour of criminal case.

¶47

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another¹ held that the High Court invoking inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the criminal case/proceedings which basically arise out of civil disputes, but cloaked into

1 (2012) 10 SCC 303

Crl.P.No.3000/2017

criminal case. This matter is fully covered by the judgment in Gian Singh’s case. Therefore the petition is allowed.

¶52

The impugned order in Crime No.153/2015 of Jayapura Police Station and the consequential proceedings in C.C.No.158/2016 on the file of the JMFC, II Court, Mysore are hereby quashed.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

akc

Sri.S.Nagaraj v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.S.Nagaraj v. the State by

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

Abdul Jamal Vs State of Karnataka

Mahesh @ Koli Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shanwaz Bhanu Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Veera Bhushan R Goni Vs the State of Karnataka

Ganapathi Bhat a Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs S Girija Shivaram Vs the State of Karnataka by