Allowed

Kirti K Mehta v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2022CRL.P/2787/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the proceedings in Crime No.121/2018 against the petitioners. The dispute arose from a commercial transaction with Altico Capital India Ltd., which was settled amicably. The Court held that in the interest of justice, the complaint should be quashed.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the petition and ordered quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.121/2018 pending against the petitioners.

Kirti K Mehta Vs State of Karnataka by — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 2787 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2787 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KIRTI K. MEHTA S/O. LATE KANTI LAL MEHTA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS NO.36, UNISHIRE SQUARE RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶8

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

SRI PRATIK K. MEHTA S/O. KIRTI K. MEHTA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS NO.36, UNISHIRE SQUARE RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶10

SRI VINAY K. MEHTA S/O. KIRTI K. MEHTA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.36, UNISHIRE SQUARE RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶11

SRI NANDA KUMAR GOPALSWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS NO.36, UNISHIRE SQUARE RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, KUMARA PARK WEST

¶12

2 - CRL.P No. 2787 of 2019

¶13

BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶14

SRI PRAVEEN NANDAKUMAR S/O. G. NANDA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS NO.36, UNISHIRE SQUARE RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD NEHRU NAGAR, KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI G.S. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 020 REP. BY SPL.P.P. HIGH COURT BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

M/S. ALTICO CAPITAL INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY ALTICO CAPITAL INDIA LTD.) REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR SRI DARSHAN ARAVIND GANGULY S/O. ARAVIND GANGULY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS NO.21, 2ND FLOOR, 5TH NORTH AVENUE MAKER MAXITY, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA MUMBAI - 400 051.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI RAHUL RAI K., HCGP., FOR R.1; SRI PRADEEP NAYAK AND SRI SANKEETH VITTAL, ADVOCATES FOR R.2.)

¶22

¶23

CRL.P No. 2787 of 2019

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT/FIR LODGED BY THE 2^nd RESPONDENT WITH THE 1^st RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR. NO.121/2018 BEFORE THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 403, 406, 465, 468, 471, 420 AND 34 OF IPC., VIDE ANNEXURES - A AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The second respondent is a financial Institution and petitioners are shareholders and promoters of Group of Companies, which had borrowed money from the second respondent. The transaction resulted in dispute between the petitioners and the second respondent and it resulted in second respondent filing a complaint before the first respondent - Police and FIR was registered bearing Crime No.121/2018 before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 403, 406, 465, 468, 471 and 420 read with

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 2787 of 2019

¶30

Section 34 of IPC. The matter is still under investigation. In the meanwhile, the parties have resolved their dispute and have arrived at an amicable settlement.

¶31

Petitioners have filed an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the proceedings in the light of the settlement between the parties. The second respondent has filed a memo dated 22.11.2022 supported by verifying affidavit of the authorised representative of the second respondent wherein it is stated that the settlement has been arrived at and it is prayed that the proceedings against the petitioners be quashed. The petitioners are present before the Court physically and authorized representative of the second respondent has appeared by way of video conference and they are duly identified by their respective Advocates.

¶32

Though all the offences alleged are not compoundable, the transaction between the petitioners and the second respondent which gave rise to filing of a complaint by the second respondent is commercial in nature. The facts alleged do not constitute heinous crime which shocks the

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 2787 of 2019

¶35

conscience of the Society. The parties have resolved their dispute amicably and closure of the proceedings against the petitioners will only result in the petitioners and the second respondent co-existing peacefully without any enmity. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that the request of the petitioners and the second respondent can be agreed and the proceedings against the petitioners be quashed. Further, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 has no objection for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners. In the light of the compromise arrived at between the petitioners and the second respondent, I pass the following:-

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i. The petition is allowed .

¶38

ii. The proceedings in Crime No.121/2018 pending on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, against the petitioners is hereby quashed.

¶39

¶40

CRL.P No. 2787 of 2019

¶41

In view of the disposal of the main petition,

¶42

I.A.No.1/2022, does not survive for consideration and the same

¶43

is hereby disposed of.

¶44

SD/JUDGE

¶45

VMB

Kirti K Mehta v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kirti K Mehta 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

M/S. Prolitus Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Solize India Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Sri G N Ramanujam Vs Sri Malavalli Chikkanna Charities

Sri Harshavardhan M Vs Smt R Shobha

M/S Sreedevi Infra Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs P N Venkataranayana Babu

Smt Sannamma Vs the State by the Inspector of Police

Daniel Norbert Babalaski Vs the State of Karnataka