Allowed

Sri Jagadeesh N v. State by Devanahalli Police Station

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2021CRL.P/3362/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the first information report in a criminal case involving cheating and criminal breach of trust. Relying on the Supreme Court in Gian Singh case, it held that the dispute was predominantly civil in nature, parties had settled, and continuation of proceedings served no purpose under Section 482 CrPC.

What did the court decide?

The First Information Report in Crime No.6/2017 and consequent proceedings are quashed.

Sri Jagadeesh N Vs State by Devanahalli Police Station — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.3362/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3362/2017

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI JAGADEESH N S/O. M.NARAYANA RAO AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT FA 253, NEARBY BENGALURU ONE OFFICE OLD TOWNSHIP HAL VIMANAPURA, BENGALURU- 560 017

¶10

PERMANENT ADDRESS NO.22, SAGAR ROAD GONIKOPPA SHIMOGA-577 204 …PETITIONER (BY SRI T.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU- 560 001

¶13

SRI G.PUTTARAJU S/O. S.GOPALA KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PARTNER M/S.NEELADHRI VENTURES KORAMARA BEEDHI, TALUKA OFFICE ROAD DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU …RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI PRASHANTH P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

Crl.P.No.3362/2017

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.6/2017 OF DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 406, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.2 submit that the parties have settled the matter and respondent No.2 has no objection to quash the impugned proceedings.

¶21

Learned HCGP submits memo along with the report of the Investigating Officer and the statement of respondent No.2.

¶22

Heard both side.

¶23

“Whether the proceedings in Crime No.6/2017

¶24

of Devanahalli police station against the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of the Court?” is the question involved in this case.

¶25

The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime

¶26

No.6/2017 of Devanahalli police station. The said case was

¶27

Crl.P.No.3362/2017

¶28

¶29

registered against the petitioner and two others for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2.

¶30

6. The gist of the said complaint is as follows:

¶31

That accused Nos.1 and 3 were the owners of the land bearing Survey No.5 of Thindlu village of Devanahalli Taluk measuring 3 acres 10 guntas. They entered into an agreement of sale dated 28.06.2012 with the complainant. On receiving advance consideration, they put him in possession of the property. Such being the position, accused Nos.1 and 3 in collusion with accused No.2 suppressing the agreement of sale in favour of the complainant, sold the property to accused No.2 under the registered sale deed dated 07.05.2014. When the complainant questioned that, accused entered into a settlement with him. Accused No.2 agreed to pay Rs.2,77,00,000/- to the complainant. Towards payment of the said amount, he issued three cheques drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shivamogga. When presented, they were dishonoured for want of sufficient

¶32

Crl.P.No.3362/2017

¶33

¶34

funds, thereby the accused have committed criminal breach of trust and cheated him.

¶35

Both Counsel submit that pending this petition, the parties have settled the matter. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has executed re-conveyance deed in favour of accused Nos.1 and 3.

¶36

The report of the Investigating Officer was called for in the matter. He has submitted the report along with the statement of the complainant-respondent No.2. In the said statement, respondent No.2 admitted that he has settled the matter with other accused and he has no objection for quashing the proceedings.

¶37

The above facts and circumstances of the case show that the dispute between the parties is predominantly civil dispute and they are given the colour of criminal case. Since the parties have settled the matter, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner does not serve any purpose and the chances of conviction of the petitioner are very remote.

¶38

Crl.P.No.3362/2017

¶39

¶40

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab¹ held that where certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions if the parties settle them, the High Court by invoking inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings.

¶41

Having regard to the facts and circumstances, nature of the offences, settlement entered into between the parties and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh’s case referred to supra it is fit case to quash the proceedings. Therefore the petition is allowed.

¶42

The first information report in Crime No.6/2017 of Devanahalli police station and the consequent proceedings are hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

KSR

¶45

1 (2012)10 SCC 303

Sri Jagadeesh N v. State by Devanahalli Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jagadeesh N v. State by Devanahalli Police Station

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 Srikanth Guptha Vs Sri Gangadhar Mallappa

Sri. Padmanabha v Vs the State of Karnataka

Jaffer Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Savio Pereira Vs State of Karnataka

Jamsheer Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.K.S.Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka