Quashed

Sri C R Chandran v. Smt H K Sharadamba

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2022CRL.P/3263/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings and the charge sheet filed under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. The court held the alleged dispute over misappropriation of trust funds and cheque issuance was a civil dispute requiring due process, not a criminal offence lacking specific allegations of dishonest intent.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; proceedings in CC No.3044/2013 and the charge sheet quashed.

Sri C R Chandran Vs Smt H K Sharadamba — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3263 OF 2013

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI C.R. CHANDRAN, FOUNDER TRUSTEE, PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT EDUCATIONAL TRUST, S/O LATE C.P. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT GANESH, S-2/3, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SFS-208, OPP. MOTHER DAIRY, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560 064. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI SHYAM KOUNDINYA A.S., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT. H.K. SHARADAMBA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O. SRI B.S. PHANIRAJ, RESIDING AT NO.5001, ANRIYA DWELLING TON LOTTEGOLLAHALLI, R.M.V. II STAGE, BANGALORE- 560 094.

¶11

SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY-560 064. …RESPONDENTS

¶12

¶13

(BY SMT. LEENA C. SHIVAPURAMATH, HCGP FOR R2, SRI G.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO 1)SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2013 PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.259/2010 NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.3044/2013 BY THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE CITY.

¶16

2)QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3044/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE CITY AND DIRECT HIM TO DROP ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN RELATION OR ARISING THERETO.

¶17

3)QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN CRIME NO.259/2010 AND ALSO THE FIR IN CRIME NO.259/2010 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

A charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under

¶21

section 406 and 420 of IPC against the petitioner alleging that in the General Body Meeting held on 11.06.2009, a resolution was passed to issue a cheque of Rs.40,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner- accused No.1 who is the chairman of Professional Management Educational Trust and thereafter the petitioneraccused No.1 without obtaining loan from bank and without developing the civic amenity site has misappropriated the funds.

¶22

¶23

The learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and issued summons to the petitioner. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 lodged a FIR as a counter blast to the private complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1 which is registered as CC No.3613/13 alleging that the petitioner was removed from chairmanship by creating false documents. Hence, he submits that the FIR was lodged as an afterthought so as to circumvent the proceedings initiated against respondent No.1. He further submits that the FIR lodged against the petitioner arises out of the dispute between petitioner and respondent No.1 who are the trustees of the aforesaid Trust which is purely civil in nature.

¶25

On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State submit that the charge sheet clearly discloses the commission of the offence and does not warrant any interference.

¶26

¶27

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶28

The allegation is that the petitioner having borrowed a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- for developing the civic amenity site has not developed the site but has misappropriated the funds. The respondent No.1 lodged FIR against petitioner only after petitioner filed a private complaint against respondent No.1 alleging that by creating false documents he has been removed from chairmanship which clearly implies that the dispute between the parties arises out of removal of petitioner from chairmanship of the Professional Management Education Trust. The allegation as to whether the petitioner has misappropriated the amount without developing the civic amenity site belonging to the Trust is a dispute which is purely civil in nature, however, given a criminal texture. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No.1 as a counterblast to the private complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent No.1 so as to circumvent the same.

¶29

¶30

To constitute an offence under section 420 of IPC,

¶31

there must be a specific allegation that from the date of issuance of the cheque, there must be a dishonest intention to cheat the Trust. In the absence of the said specific allegation, the filing of the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is without any substance. There is no material produced along with the charge sheet that the Petitioner has misappropriated the amount belonging to the Trust. Hence, in the absence of any material, the filing of the charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC is also without any substance .

¶32

In view of the foregoing discussion, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) Criminal petition is allowed;

¶35

ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.3044/2013 pending on the file

¶36

of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Bkm

Sri C R Chandran v. Smt H K Sharadamba

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C R Chandran v. Smt H K Sharadamba

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. Sathyendra Dhingra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri H Narayana Vs the Commissioner

The Bevinahalli Vs the Secretary Government of Karnataka

Sri Subramani Vs the State by Chikkaballapura Police Station

Shri H R Satishchandra Vs State of Karnataka

Ramachandraiah Vs State of Karnataka