Allowed

M/S Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Dec 2021CRL.P/3566/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings initiated against three petitioners. The court held that the alleged acts did not attract the invoked charges, noting significant allegations were against a different accused subject to prior quashing.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.20686/2018 against the petitioners on the file of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru were quashed.

M/S Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited Vs State… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3566 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

M/s Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Having registered office O/at Aviva Towers, Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course, DLF Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122003. Represented by its Branch Manager, Mr. Shammy Majeed.

¶9

Smt. Namrata Kumar, W/o Dinesh Sabarwal, Aged about 40 years, R/at No.A-1/429, 2^nd Floor, Sushanth Lok, II Stage, Opp to Uma Sanjeevini Hospital, Sector-55, Gurgaon, Hariyana-122011.

¶10

And also at O/at Aviva Towers, Sector Road, Opposite Golf Course, DLF Phase-V, Sector 43, Gurgaon-122003.

¶11

Sri Manish Puri, S/o Subash Puri, Aged about 31 years, R/at 595/30, Adarsh Colony,

¶12

¶13

Near D Park, Delhi Road, Rohtak, Hariyana-124001.

¶14

…Petitioners

¶15

(By Sri Amar Correa, Advocate)

¶16

AND

¶17

State of Karnataka By Hebbal Police Station, Bengaluru-560024. Represented by its HCGP, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.

¶18

Sri Niketan J Devadiga, S/o Jinnappa Devadiga, Aged about 42 years, M/s. Dream World India, No.85, SMR Arcade, Vinayak Nagar, Hebbal, Bengaluru-560024.

¶19

…Respondents (By Sri Mahesh Shetty, HCGP for R1; Sri V.Raghunath, Advocate for Sri B.G.Rajashekar, Advocate for R2)

¶20

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 28.07.2018 passed in C.C.No.20686/2018 (Arising out of Cr.No.195/2017 of the Hebbal Police Station) pending on the file of IV A.C.M.M., Bengaluru thereby taking cognizance and issuing process against these petitioners, for the offence punishable under Section 406, 420, 120(B) read with 34 of IPC against the accused therein arraying these petitioners as accused No.1, 5 and 6 as against these petitioners, vide Annexure-A.

¶21

¶22

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission , this day, the Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri. Amar Correa, counsel for the

¶25

petitioners and Sri. V. Raghunath for respondent no.2. Government Pleader is also present.

¶26

This is a petition filed under section 482 for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.20686/2018 on the file of IV Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru. The petitioners

¶27

are accused 1, 5 and 6 respectively in the said case.

¶28

It is not necessary to give detailed reasons

¶29

for allowing this petition, because on earlier occasion, accused no.2 T.R. Ramachandran, approached this court by filing Crl.P.No.3278/2021 for quashing the proceedings against him. That petition was allowed. The second respondent herein had challenged the said order by filing the special leave petition before the

¶30

¶31

Hon’ble Supreme Court. By order dated 15.11.2021, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition and thereby the order of this court in Crl.P.No.3278/2021 was confirmed.

¶32

Now the charge sheet is produced. There are

¶33

no allegations against the petitioner no.1 and 2. All the major allegations are against accused no.3. So

¶34

far as the petitioner no.3, who is accused no.6 is concerned, it is just stated that he compelled the second respondent to put signature on the settlement deed. In the charge sheet the offences under section 406 and 120B r/w 34 IPC are invoked. Even if it is assumed that the 3^rd petitioner compelled the second respondent to put his signature on the settlement deed, the offence under section 406, 420 and 120B IPC are not attracted. In this view, this petition deserves to be allowed. Hence the following:

¶35

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Petition stands allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.20686/2018 on the file of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are quashed.

¶38

SD/JUDGE

¶39

M/S Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited 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

Mr H Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Thimmaraju Vs the State of Karnataka by

Chandrashekar. L Vs M. T. Krishnappa

Mr N S Rajesh Vs M/S Panchajanya Textiles

Sri Saurabh Shekhar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anand Bharadwaj Vs the State of Karnataka