Dismissed

Sri. Sunil Kumar Nahar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Sept 2022CRL.P/1619/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings based on Section 482 Cr.P.C. It held that with disputed factual questions and a filed charge sheet, quashing was not permissible, reserving liberty to raise defenses later.

What did the court decide?

None. The petition to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed, with liberty reserved to raise defenses before the trial court.

Sri. Sunil Kumar Nahar Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 1619 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1619 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SUNIL KUMAR NAHAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O MR.G.C.NAHAR, RESIDING AT NO.22, 18^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 003.

¶8

SRI. ANIL KUMAR NAHAR, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O MR.G.C.NAHAR, RESIDING AT NO.22, 18^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 003.

¶9

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. V.N.YADHUNATH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O MR. V.P.NARAYANAN NAMBUDIRI, RESIDING AT NO.36, 18^TH CROSS, 20^TH MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 040.

¶11

SRI. AKASH KUMAR NAHAR, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O MR.G.C.NAHAR,

¶12

¶13

CRL.P No. 1619 of 2019

¶14

RESIDING AT NO.22, 18^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE – 560 003.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI.MOHAMMED MUJASSIM, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA, NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶19

SRI. RASHMI RAVIKIRANA, W/O LATE C.N.RAVIKIRAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, CHAIRMAN/MANAGING TRUSTEE OF VIJAYANAGAR EDUCATION TRUST, NO.6, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 9^TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE, HAMPI NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 104.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SMT.ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.LIKITH R PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2702/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 465 AND 420

¶23

3 - CRL.P No. 1619 of 2019

¶24

OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., NELAMANGALA IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶28

"To quash the entire criminal proceedings in CC No.2702/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465 and 420 of the IPC pending before the Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Nelamangala in so far as it relates to the petitioners, in the interests of justice and equity."

¶29

Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before the Nelamangala Rural Police Station alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC against the petitioners on account of various transactions which have taken place between the petitioners and the respondents and certain others. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 1619 of 2019

¶32

Sri Mohammed Mujassim, learned counsel appearing

¶33

for the petitioners would submit that all the disputes between the petitioners and respondent No.2 are civil in nature in as much as they arise out of certain Memorandum of Understating (MoU) which has been entered into between the petitioners and certain others as regards the takeover of the management of Vijayanagara Educational Trust inasmuch as, the petitioners were to be appointed as trustees of the said Trust. The MoU making it clear that on the petitioners making available a sum of Rs.1,41,00,000/-, they would be made trustees. Thus, any action which has been taken by the petitioners is in terms of the MoU which has been entered into between the parties and there is no criminal offence which can be alleged to have been committed by the petitioners.

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 1619 of 2019

¶36

He further submits that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had

¶37

filed complaint on 23.10.2014 with the Vijayanagara Police Station alleging the offence under Section 420 IPC against the erstwhile trustees of the Vijayanagara Educational Trust. The jurisdictional police however refused to take any action thereon on the ground that the disputes are civil in nature. He therefore, submits that the Vijayanagara Police having stated that the disputes are civil in nature and present complaint also ought to be considered to be civil in nature and ought to be quashed by this Court.

¶38

Smt. Abhinaya K., learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the MoU which has been entered into is a forged document in that signatures having been forged. As such, on that basis the complaint has been filed. The investigation having been completed and charge sheet being laid. The

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 1619 of 2019

¶41

trial Court would have to ascertain the truth of the matter after trial.

¶42

Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the charge sheet having already been filed and the petitioners having been implicated in the said offences. This Court ought not to interfere in the matter.

¶43

Heard Sri Mohammed Mujassim, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader, for respondent No.1State and Smt. Abhinaya K., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.

¶44

The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have filed the complaint alleging the offence under Section 420 IPC. Respondent No.2 has also filed complaint alleging offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The basis of the allegations is a MoU dated 01.12.2012 since

¶45

¶46

CRL.P No. 1619 of 2019

¶47

the claim of the petitioners to be trustees is under the said MoU, whereas respondent No.2 is contending that minutes of the meeting which has been executed subsequently i.e., on 12.12.2012 in furtherance of MoU, is a forged document.

¶48

Needless to say that the petitioners are claiming both under the MoU and Minutes of the Board of Trustees dated 12.12.2012 alleging that there is a offence committed under Section 420 of IPC, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had filed complaint on 23.10.2014 as regards the petitioners not being allowed to take over the management of the School being run by the Vijayanagara Educational Trust by inducting them as trustees of the said trust which is contrary to MoU and minutes of meeting and thereby amounting to an offence under Section 420 IPC, when the petitioners have made payment of huge amount of money under the said MoU.

¶49

¶50

CRL.P No. 1619 of 2019

¶51

The petitioners themselves having contended that there is a criminal offence which has been committed in the transaction between the parties to the MoU and the minutes of the meeting. It is now not permissible for the petitioners to contend that the complaint which has been filed by respondent No.2 is civil in nature while alleging that the allegations made by the petitioners is criminal in nature. This being more so on account of the fact that the petitioners themselves have filed a Miscellaneous Petition under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure in Misc.P.No.136/2015. Furthermore, the 'B' report which has been filed in the complaint which has been filed by the petitioners has also been challenged by filing a protest memo by the petitioners.

¶52

In such background, when there are so many disputed questions of facts, I am of the considered opinion that this Court cannot exercise the powers

¶53

¶54

CRL.P No. 1619 of 2019

¶55

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the

¶56

proceedings at this stage, more so, when a charge sheet has already been laid. Reserving liberty to raise all defences and contentions before the trial Court, the petition stands dismissed .

¶57

In the event of the petitioners succeeding in the protest memo filed in challenging in the 'B' report, it is directed that the said proceedings be also transferred to the Court handling C.C. No.2702/2017 so that a common trial could be held.

¶58

Needless to say that in the event of protest memo being dismissed, the Principal Civil Judge, Nelamangala to go ahead with C.C. No.2702/2017.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

Sri. Sunil Kumar Nahar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sunil Kumar Nahar 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

M/S Canara Bank Vs M Shantha Kumari

Mr M v Kanakaraj Vs the Regional Commissioner

Shri N Madhubabu Vs Bharat Electronics Limited

Sri K N Shantha Kumar Vs K R Nagar Bar Association

D B Jatti Vs State of Karnataka

D B Jatti Vs State of Karnataka