Allowed

Sri Nischith Kumar v. State by Public Prosecutor

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2021CRL.P/4839/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a criminal petition filed by petitioner-accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a charge-sheet where the main accused had settled with the complainant and the FIR was quashed by a coordinate Bench.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.56235/2019 pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are quashed.

Sri Nischith Kumar Vs State by Public Prosecutor — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4839 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI NISCHITH KUMAR S/O. K. NAGENDRA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶9

SMT. RANJITHA C/O. YOGANAND, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.106, RAMSRIDHAR APARTMENT, 16^TH MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI UMESH M.N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶15

SRI ABHILASH SURENDRAN S/O. SRI B.S. SUNDRAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12/1, 1^ST CROSS, THIMMA REDDY COLONY, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR, BENGALURU EAST - 560 075.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1/STATE; R-2: SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.56235/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX A.C.M.M., BENGALURU, ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION WITH COSTS. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Though respondent No.2 served but remained unrepresented.

¶21

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.4

¶22

and 5 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) for quashing the charge-sheet in C.C.No.56235/2019 pending on the file of XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(B) and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶24

¶25

respondent No.1-State and respondent No.2 served unrepresented.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the respondent-Police registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.436/2016 on 16.07.2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120(B) and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It is alleged by the complainant that he has approached accused No.1 for the purchase of apartment by paying Rs.75.00 lakh to accused No.1. Subsequently, accused No.1 and others colluded with each other and hatched conspiracy of cheating the complainant. During the investigation, accused Nos.1 and 2 said to be husband and wife and accused No.3 (son of accused Nos.1 and 2) got settled their dispute between the complainant and others and got flat to the complainant by filing the Crl.P.No.7828/2016 before this Court and got quashed the FIR against them on 07.04.2017. Since, there is no order

¶27

¶28

passed against accused Nos.4 and 5, the Police proceeded to file charge-sheet.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that absolutely there is no allegation against these petitioners. The main allegation is only against accused No.1 and in view of settlement between the parties, the case was quashed.

¶30

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, especially the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.7828/2016 dated 07.04.2017 which reveals that accused Nos.1 to 3 have compromised with the offence with the complainant and got quashed. Accordingly, this Court by relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 has quashed the proceedings against them.

¶31

¶32

Petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the

¶33

employees of accused Nos.1 to 3 and there is no direct allegation against accused Nos.4 and 5. The main allegation goes against accused No.1. The FIR has been quashed and offences under Sections 420 and 120B are all already dropped. Therefore, question of quashing the proceedings under Section 420 and 120B of IPC does not arise. Allowing the trial court to proceed with the trial is abuse of process of law.

¶34

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed .

¶35

The further proceedings in C.C.No.56235/2019 pending on the file of XXIX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶36

SD/JUDGE

¶37

GBB

Sri Nischith Kumar v. State by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nischith Kumar v. State by Public Prosecutor

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 Viju Muthappa P C Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rupla Naika Vs Suresh Naik

Mrs Vijayalaxmi Susheel Kumar Vs Mr. Dhanuraj

M/S. Garuda Auto Craft Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ganesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri S D Ravindra Vs State of Karnataka