Allowed

Mr Abhay Singh @ v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2022CRL.P/2878/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR. The Court held that no essential elements existed against the petitioner to constitute the alleged offences, rendering the FIR registration worthless regarding him.

What did the court decide?

FIR registered by Kapu Police Station was quashed insofar as it relates to Accused No.5 (Petitioner).

Mr Abhay Singh @ Vs the State of Karnataka — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2878/2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

MR.ABHAY SINGH @ ABHOY SINGHVI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O. MR.GAUTAM MALL SINGHVI R/AT NO.402, TARA APARTMENT CHILIMBI, MANGALURU- 575 006 ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.RACHITHA RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAPU POLICE STATION UDUPI DISTRICT REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU- 560 001

¶12

SRI U RAVINDRA BHAT AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O. LATE SRINIVASA BHAT R/AT “SRINIVASA” BAILJADDU, UDYAVARA UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT- 574 118 ...RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.3/2019 OF KAPU POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 149, 342, 406, 420, 384 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) & JMFC COURT, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 alleging that accused No.1 being the owner of the subject property entrusted the contract of construction of a building to the complainant. Accused No.1 did not pay the amount payable for the construction, hence, the accused No.1 assured the complainant that he would be allotted a shop in the building constructed and he executed an agreement of sale dated 28.04.2017. According to the agreement, a shop in the building constructed was to be sold in favour of complainant and appropriate the balance amount of Rs.19,00,000/- towards the work to be carried out by the complainant.

¶19

It is further alleged that such being the case, accused No.1 so as to defraud the complainant in collusion

¶20

¶21

with accused No.5 executed the registered sale deed in favour of accused No.5 in respect of shop which was to be sold in favour of the complainant in pursuance of the agreement of sale. The police registered the FIR against the petitioner and other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 149, 342, 406, 420, 384 of IPC. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner/accused No.5 is before this Court.

¶22

Sri P.P.Hegde learned Senior Counsel

¶23

appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation made in the FIR arises out of an alleged breach of condition contained in the agreement of sale and even otherwise the respondent/accused No.5 is a bonafide purchaser and in the absence of any material that the petitioner colluded with accused No.1 in defrauding respondent No.2, the registration of the FIR against accused No.5 is impermissible.

¶24

On the other hand learned HCGP appearing for

¶25

the State submits that accused No.5 fully knowing the

¶26

¶27

agreement of sale was executed in favour of the complainant colluded with accused No.1 has got executed the registered sale deed in respect of the subject property and the police have rightly registered the FIR against the accused Nos.1 to 5 and the same does not warrant any interference.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by

¶29

learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

The only allegation against the petitioner/ accused No.5 is that when he requested accused No.1 to execute the sale deed at that point of time he was informed that the shop has been sold in favour of accused No.5. Except the said allegation, there is no allegation against the petitioner/accused No.5. In the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the offence alleged against accused No.5, the registration of the FIR against the petitioner/accused No.5 is without any substance. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶31

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶34

ii. The impugned FIR in Crime No.03/2019 registered by the Kapu Police Station insofar it relates to Accused No.5 is hereby quashed.

¶35

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending application, if any, does not survive for consideration.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

PKN

Mr Abhay Singh @ v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Abhay Singh @ 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

Sri Mohd. Akbar @ Sunnusab Vs District Magistrate / Deputy Commissioner

Shivu @ Shiiv Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vishalakshamma Vs State by Konanakunte Police Station

Madappa P Vs Vijayanagara Police Station

Smt Astamija Dash Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. Vittal Yallappa Byakod Vs the State of