Allowed

Jan Willem Adriaan De Geus v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2022CRL.P/1979/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR for cheating and criminal breach of trust, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the petition and quashed the FIR against petitioner-accused No.9. The decision relied on the petitioner's lack of alternate director status at the relevant time and the existence of a settlement regarding other accused.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the Impugned FIR in Crime No.168/2018 registered by High Grounds Police against petitioner-accused No.9.

Jan Willem Adriaan De Geus Vs State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1979/2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

JAN WILLEM ADRIAAN DE GEUS AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SON OF WILLEM DE GEUS, HAVING HIS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT PROPRIUM CAPITAL PARTNERS, WTC AMSTERDAM, B -TOWER, 12TH FLOOR, STRAWINSKYLAAN 1127 1077XX AMSTERDAM WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE FIR AS HAVING IS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT: F(9), F GRAND HYATT PLAZA, SANTACRUZ (EAST) MUMBAI-400 055, MAHARASHTRA.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ARUN KUMAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ANIND THOMAS, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 001, KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

M/S. TOWNSHIP PROMOTERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYAN COMPLEX,

¶13

¶14

PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, MR. P. ASHWIN PAI.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI CHANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING CRIME NO.168/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 417, 418, 420, 465 AND 34 OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONER; QUASH THE WRITTEN INFORMATION AND THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION ARISING FROM FIR BEARING CRIME NO.168/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE, AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging that a joint development agreement was executed on 30.3.2009 between M/s.Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant - 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the subject property. It is further alleged that the subject property was mortgaged on 21.1.2012 in favour of Bank as security towards repayment of loan. The said money, which was disbursed, was misappropriated towards development of certain other properties purchased by M/s.Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶21

¶22

Sri Arun Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned petitioner's counsel submits that the petitioner was not an alternate director as on the date of the alleged incident. Hence, the registration of FIR against the petitioner - accused No.10 is without any substance. He further submits that a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P No.824/2019 has quashed the impugned FIR against the other accused and so as to maintain parity, the impugned FIR registered against the petitioner may be quashed.

¶23

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that in view of the settlement arrived between the 2nd respondent and M/s.Mantri Developers Pvt. Ltd., the impugned FIR may be quashed.

¶24

The said submission is placed on record.

¶25

Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.

¶26

The impugned FIR in Crime No.168/2018 registered by the

¶27

High Grounds Police, Bangalore, insofar as it relates to petitioner

¶28

accused No.9 is hereby quashed.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

BKM

Jan Willem Adriaan De Geus v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jan Willem Adriaan De Geus v. State of Karnataka 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

Mr. Bachegowda H M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr P S Ayub @ Bomanahalli Babu Vs State of Karnataka

The India Cements Ltd. Vs Bescom

C Halappa Vs Gurudev B

Saleem Pasha Hafeez Vs State of Karnataka by