Dismissed

Sri Kartik Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2022CRL.P/100285/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash proceedings for cheating and defamation arising from a film production contract dispute. The High Court held it was not a fit case to quash the proceedings, denying the petitioner an opportunity to prove his case at trial, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed.

Sri Kartik Venkatesh Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.P.No.100285 /2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPETEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.100285/2022

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI. KARTIK VENKATESH, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: FILM DIRECTOR, OFFICE AT:737/9, 60^TH CROSS, 5^TH BLOOK (OPP. VEIN CLINIC), NEAR NAGRAJ, HERIGE HOSPITAL, RAJAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560010.

¶10

…ACCUSED/PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MADANGOUDA N. PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH DHRWAD RURAL POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶14

DHARWAD-580 011.

¶15

MALLIKARJUN S/O. DEVENDRAPPA ROTTIGAWAD, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC:FILM DIRECTOR, R/O. KANAVIHONNAPUR,

¶16

TALUK & DISTRICT: DHARWAD-580 114.

¶17

…COMPLAINANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH., HCGP FOR R1)

¶19

(BY SRI. S. S. DODDALINGANNAVR., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

CRL.P.No.100285 /2022

¶21

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C., TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER IN CC NO.3758/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD FOR THE OFFENCE U/S.420, 500 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2021 PASSED IN PCR NO.1/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶23

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 09.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.1, has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 3758/2021 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 500 r/w/s.34 of IPC, pursuant to cognizance taken in PCR No.1/2020.

¶26

It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.2 filed a complaint stating that he is a

¶27

3 CRL.P.No.100285 /2022

¶28

Director, Producer and Actor by Profession and owner of MDR Film Institute. He is engaged in making of Kannada Movie “Adivasi Raju” under the banner of MDR Film City. He entered into an agreement with petitioner on 09.11.2019 for providing Camera essentials for shooting, outdoor shooting unit and post including censor approval. He has also entered into an agreement with accused Nos.2 and 3 who agreed to work as technical Director and Co-actor in the said Film. Alleging that the cameras supplied by the petitioner were not of good quality and that he has made defamatory statement in the whatsapp group titled “Ambiga Productions”, respondent No.2 filed a false complaint. Without application of mind, the trial Court has taken cognizance and issued summons against accused Nos.1 to 3 including the petitioner. Challenging the same this petition is filed.

¶29

CRL.P.No.100285 /2022

¶30

¶31

Respondent No.1 has appeared through High

¶32

Court Government Pleader. Respondent No.2 has also appeared through counsel.

¶33

During the course of arguments learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that to extract money from the petitioner, respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint. The matter between them is of Civil nature and the provisions of Sections 420 and 500 of IPC are not attracted and prays to allow the petition.

¶34

On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2 and petitioner entered into an agreement for supplying of camera essentials and also to provide outdoor shooting unit and post production including the censor approval. Accused Nos.2 and 3 agreed to work as Technical Director and Co-actor in the film. In this regard petitioner has received Rs.4,50,000/- out of total sum of Rs.6,50,000/-. However, after shooting for 15

¶35

CRL.P.No.100285 /2022

¶36

¶37

days, when the complainant checked the footage, he found that the footage is not of the good quality as the camera supplied was not as per required quality. When the complainant confronted accused No.1/ petitioner, he was annoyed and therefore he posted defamatory messages against the respondent No.2 in the Whatsapp group with the intention of tarnishing his image. He would further submit that based on the material placed on record the trial Court has rightly taken cognizance and issued summons and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶38

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶39

has also supported the steps taken by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶40

Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record.

¶41

It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 in order to make a Kannada Movie by name “Adivasi Raju”, entered into contract with petitioner, wherein he has

¶42

CRL.P.No.100285 /2022

¶43

¶44

agreed to furnish camera essentials, outdoor shoot unit and also post production work including obtaining approval of Censor certificate. It is also not in dispute that out of Rs.6,50,000/- he has agreed to receive Rs.4,50,000/-. Difference of opinion has raised between the petitioner and respondent No.2 on the allegations that the camera essentials supplied by petitioner is not of good quality and after differences arose, petitioner has sent several messages in the whatsapp group which are defamatory in nature.

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶46

submitted that the transaction between the petitioner

¶47

and respondent No.2 is civil in nature. It may be true that the transaction is also of civil in nature. However, at the same time having regard to the allegations made that the intention of the petitioner was to cheat respondent No.2 and also the messages were sent with

¶48

a view to defame him, they also attract a penal provisions of Sections 420 and 500 of IPC. Therefore

¶49

CRL.P.No.100285 /2022

¶50

¶51

rightly the trial Court has taken cognizance. It is for the respondent No.2 to prove the allegations at the trial. Without providing opportunity to him to prove his case, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Certainly, the continuation of the proceedings does not amount to abuse of process of any Court.

¶52

Thus from the above discussion, I hold that this is not a fit case to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;

¶53

ORDER

¶54

Petition filed by the petitioner/ accused No.1 under

¶55

Section 482 of Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed .

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

PJ/yan

Sri Kartik Venkatesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kartik Venkatesh v. the 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

Jadar Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Jadar Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghavendra Alias Raghu Alias Oc Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kartik Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

H.S. Rahamathulla Khan S/O H.S. Ahamad Khan Vs the State by

Xxxxxxxx Vs Xxxxxxxxx