Allowed

Ramesh R, v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2021WP/345/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge Writ Bench allowed a petition under Article 227 and Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR in a cheating dispute. Finding the offence not against society at large and noting a valid compromise with payment of Rs.52.5 Lakhs, the Court permitted compounding and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.442/2019 is quashed. The application under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. is allowed.

Ramesh R, Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.345/2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMESH R, S/O RAJGOPAL N, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.2049, 1^ST FLOOR, ABO, MIG 3^RD PHASE, NEAR DIARY CIRCLE, BENGALURU- 560064.

¶9

MANOJ MATHEW, S/O V.V. MATHAI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3^RD FLOOR, HOTEL AIRL, M.G. ROAD, KOCCHI, ERNAKULAM, KERALA-682011.

¶10

KRISHNAN R., S/O RAJAMONY KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, #50/478 B, GOVINDAM, EDAPPALLY, P.O. ERNAKULAM CITY, KERALA-682024.

¶11

RAMACHANDRA MALLYA, S/O RAVINDRA MOODABIDRI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, A-1033, RUSTOMJ, MUMBAI, NASHIK HIGHWAY, MAJIWADA THANE, MUMBAI-400601.

¶12

¶13

SHETTY B.R., S/O A. SHAMBHU SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 77 YEAWRS, VILLA ON PLOT NO.61, AL YASAT ST. OFF AL BATEEN ST., ABU DHABI NA AE.

¶14

GEORGE ANTHONY, S/O ANTHONY VACHAPARAMBIL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, #58/8621, VAHAPAR, ERNAKULLAM COLLEGE, P.O. ERNAKULAM CITY, KERALA-682035.

¶15

SHETTY B.S., S/O A. SHAMBHU SHETTY, AGED ABOUIT 82 YEARS, #15-7-383, ROSHINI KA, NEXT TO BHARATH BEEDI BUILDING KADRI, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU-575003.

¶16

SHETTY C.R. ALIAS B.M.CHANDAKUMARI, S/O MANJAPPA RAI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, VILLA ON PLOT NO.61, AI YASAT ST. OFF AL, BATEEN ST., ABU DHABI NA AE.

¶17

BINAY SHETTY, S/O BAVAGUTHU RAGHURAM SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, FLAT NO.10003 345, BURJ, NUMBER 345187393, DUBAI NA AE.

¶18

PROMOTH MANGHAT, S/O KUNISEERI CHAKKINGAL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, P O BOX 28030, ABU DHABHI NA AE.

¶19

¶20

NIRMAN R. SHETTY, S/O RAJMOHAN SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, #202, 2^ND FLOOR, G-3, 60 FT ROAD, KEB LAYOUT, GEDDALAHALLI, BENGALURU-560094.

¶21

… PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SMT. MISHA THOMAS, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ASHOK NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU-560042,

¶25

WALL STREET FINANCE LTD., 1^ST FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, RESIDENCY ROAD, CIVIL STATION, BENGALURU, KARANTAKA, BENGALURU-560025. REPRESENTED BY K.N. SUDHEENDRA, REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶26

… RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.442/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDL.CMM COURT, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A).

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.442/2019 pending on the file of the IV ACMM, Bengaluru.

¶33

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein has lodged the complaint before the police making the allegation of cheating and breach of trust. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the FIR.

¶34

Now the parties have compromised the matter. As a result of compromise, they have filed an application before this Court under Section 320(2) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to permit them to compound the offences. In support of the application, they have filed a joint affidavit also. In terms of the settlement, the petitioners herein have agreed to pay the amount in respect of foreign exchange which they have received from respondent No.2. In terms of the settlement, demand draft for an amount of Rs.52,50,000/- is handed over to the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 acknowledges the receipt of demand draft.

¶35

¶36

The petitioner No.3 is present through video conference. Having taken note that the dispute is interse between the parties and the offence is not against the society at large, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court can permit the parties to compound the offence. The settlement amongst the parties is without any influence or any coercion.

¶37

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶38

following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(i) The application filed under Section 320(2) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶41

(ii) Consequently, the petition is allowed.

¶42

(iii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.442/2019 is hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Ramesh R, v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh R, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joseph Chacko Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Dewaraju Vs State by District Forest Officer

Hanumantha Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivas. v Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri K.S. Parveez Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Ronald M Monis Vs Mr. Jaffar Sharief