Quashed

H B Laxman v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Sept 2022CRL.P/1137/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings under Sections 408, 468, 424, 420 IPC and Section 66 IT Act, the High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings qua the petitioner following a settlement agreement between the parties, noting the offences were not against the State.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings in C.C. No. 232/2015 qua the petitioner and disposed of Criminal Petition No. 1137 of 2022.

H B Laxman Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 1137 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1137 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

H.B.LAXMAN S/O BETTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.63, HOLENARASIPURA TALUKU, HANGARAHALLI, HASSAN – 573 211.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHASHI KIRAN V., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BY HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.

¶15

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

SUPRAJIT ENGINEERING LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS OFFICER, SUSHAN KUMAR SHETTY, NO.100,

¶18

BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA,

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 1137 of 2022

¶21

ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU – 560 099.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 IN C.C.NO.232/2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A NOW PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL, HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION.

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.232/2015 registered for offences punishable under Sections 408, 468, 424, 420 r/w Section 120B of the IPC and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶28

During the pendency of the petition, the parties to the lis have entered into compromise and have filed a memo along

¶29

¶30

CRL.P No. 1137 of 2022

¶31

with the settlement agreement. Insofar as accused Nos.2 and 3

¶32

are concerned, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties, has already quashed the proceedings pending against them in Crl.P.No.5253/2018 by order dated 17.02.2022 and in Crl.P.No.7698/2019 by order dated 24.02.2022. The present case concerns settlement qua accused No.1/petitioner herein.

¶33

The relevant paragraphs of the terms of settlement agreement reads as under:

¶34

“…. …. ….

¶35

1. With the intervention of the respectable, both the Parties have realized that in order to maintain peace, harmony and healthy business association, it will be in lager interest of both the parties to enter into a Settlement of their own free will and therefore, have decided to bring all the litigations between the parties to an end.

¶36

2. The Parties herein will file necessary applications/affidavits/pleadings, as may be necessary in the Criminal Petition No. 1137/2022 pending before the hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, seeking the quashing/compounding of proceedings in C.C. No. 232/2015 pending before the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Div) & JMFC Court, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural, insofar as the First Party is concerned.

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 1137 of 2022

¶39

3. That such pleadings shall be filed within a period of 30 days from signing this agreement.

¶40

4. The Second Party agrees that it has no claims whatsoeverpast, present or future, against the First Party, and that upon execution of this Agreement, all disputes and claims between the Parties stand settled fully and finally..

¶41

5. That the Settlement effected by the Parties have also been endorsed by the witnesses. Both the parties have mutually agreed that they will not institute any civil or criminal case/ complaint related to the present case against each other in future and shall abide by the terms and conditions of present Settlement Deed.

¶42

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereunto have set their hands to this Agreement on the day, month and year first written above.”

¶43

Though the offences alleged are cognizable, in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties and also the fact that the they are not against the State, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings pending against the petitioner.

¶44

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) Criminal Petition is disposed.

¶47

¶48

CRL.P No. 1137 of 2022

¶49

(ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.232/2015 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural stand quashed qua the petitioner.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

BKP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11

H B Laxman v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H B Laxman 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

Shiva Kumari Vs the State of Karnataka

Najmul Akhtar Hiba @ Mandira Mandal @ Mandir Mandal Vs Union of India

B Chandrasekhar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Madhu K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shankarappa Vs Smt Sneha P C @ Yashu

Thimmarasu Ravichandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka