Allowed

Sri B N S Reddy v. State by

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2021CRL.P/6263/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR. The offenses arose from a civil dispute within a club membership that was subsequently settled amicably. Upon the joint prayer of parties, the accused and victim reached a compromise, leading the Court to quash the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.144/2020 registered by Indiranagar Police and pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is hereby quashed.

Sri B N S Reddy Vs State by — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6263 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI B.N.S. REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANT, RESIDING AT 7^TH CROSS, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, BENGLAURU – 560 008, AND ALSO AT PRESIDENT, INDIRANAGAR CLUB, BENGALURU – 560 008.

¶9

SRI M. NAGENDRA AGED ABOIUT 59 YEARS, S/O. MUNIHANUMAPPA, RESIDING AT NO.131, 2^ND A-CROSS, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 071, AND ALSO AT SECRETARY, INDIRANAGAR CLUB, BENGALURU – 560 008.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY DR. G. SUKUMARAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SRI RAM MOHAN MENON AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O. LATE A.D. MENON, ELECTED COMMITTEE MEMBER, INDIRANAGAR CLUB, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 008. ...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.144/2020 DATED 08.10.2020 UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 417, 418, 420, 465, 468 AND 471 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT/INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, PENDING ON THE FILE OF X A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1

¶20

and 2 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing the criminal proceedings in Crime No.144/2020 registered by Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru pending on the file of

¶21

¶22

X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru on the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 in PCR No.53299/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 417, 418, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’).

¶23

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., and the same was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. During the investigation, the petitioners and respondent No.2 said to have settled the dispute between them. There were several suits pending between them and the same have been settled amicably. Therefore, they have filed a joint memo before this Court

¶25

for having settled their dispute and in view of the compromise between the parties, respondent No.2 do not

¶26

¶27

want to prosecute the complaint and want to withdraw the complaint against the petitioners. Accordingly, prayed for quashing the FIR.

¶28

The application of both the counsel is placed on record. Perused the records. There was civil suit pending between the parties and the same were already settled between them. Respondent No.2 is said to be a member of the Indiranagar Club and there were some dispute among them, hence, the private complaint came to be filed in PCR No.53299/2020 and the Magistrate referred the same under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to respondent No.1Indiranagar Police Station for the alleged offences stated above.

¶29

In view of compounding the offences between the parties, Section 420 of IPC is compoundable offence and other offences are not compoundable in view of settlement between the parties. The FIR requires to be quashed as the complainant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. In view of settlement between the

¶30

¶31

parties and permitted the parties to compound the offences on their joint memo, the FIR in Crime No.144/2020 is hereby requires to be quashed.

¶32

Accordingly, criminal petition is allowed .

¶33

The FIR in Crime No.144/2020 registered by the Indiranagar Police on the Private Complaint referred by the Magistrate is hereby quashed.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

GBB

Sri B N S Reddy v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B N S Reddy v. State by

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

Puneeth @ Benki Puni Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunath v Vs Smt. Shobha

Sahana @ Shahid Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Dakshayanamma H U Vs State of Karnataka

M Sreekanth Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshman Reddy Vs State of Karnataka