Allowed

Maruthi Corporation Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2022CRL.P/3971/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and proceedings before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The court held the court lacked jurisdiction as the cause of action arose outside Bengaluru.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; proceedings in PCR No.5945/2017 against petitioners quashed; liberty reserved to respondents to approach jurisdictional court.

Maruthi Corporation Ltd. Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3971 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MARUTHI CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR SHRI DR. K. RAM REDDY 501, MAY FAIR GRDENS 8-2-682, ROAD NO.12 BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD - 500 034

¶8

ALSO AT

¶9

101, RELIANCE MANOR ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500 034.

¶10

MRM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR DR. RAM REDDY S/O. K. VENKGAL REDDY RESIDING AT A 126, JOURNALIST COLONY JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD - 500 034

¶11

ASLO AT

¶12

101, RELIANCE MANOR ROAD NO.12, BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500 034.

¶13

¶14

SHRI DR. K. RAM REDDY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR MARUTHI CORPORATION LTD. HAVING OFFICE ADDRESS AT 101 RELIANCE MANOR, ROAD NO.12 BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD TELANGALA - 500 034.

¶15

(BY SRI M. AMSHUMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶16

... PETITIONERS

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU - 560 092.

¶19

MR. KRISHNAKUMAR SUNKAMMURALI S/O. S. RAMACHANDRA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶20

MRS. PRATHIMA W/O. SRI KRISHNA KUMAR SUNKAMM MURALI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RESPONDENTS 2 AND 2 RESIDING AT G.185, 10TH CROSS, 20TH MAIN BEHIND RELIANCE FOOT PRINT G' BLOCK, SAHAKAR NAGAR BENALURU - 560 092 AND ALSO AT 802 W SUNNYOAKS AVE CAMPBELL CA - 95008, CALIFORNIA, U.S. (REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER) MR. RAMANNA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT G185, 10TH CROSS 20TH MAIN BEHIND RELIANCE FOOT PRINT

¶21

¶22

G BLOCK SAHAKAR NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 092.

¶23

... RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI K. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R.1; SMT. KEERTANA SWAMYNATHAN FOR SRI S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.05.2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE ON THE FILE OF THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN CR. NO.180/2017 ARISING OUT OF PCR. NO.5945/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR DATED 07.08.2017 REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT IN CR. NO.180/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN CR. NO.180/2017 ARISING OUT OF PCR. NO.5945/2017 AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 had certain property transaction. It is submitted that petitioners are property developers and have been developing certain properties in and around Hyderabad and that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 desirous of purchasing a Villa in Andhra Pradesh, paid a sum of Rs.64,66,575/- and that the petitioners registered a site in "Heritage Park", Annaram Village and Gram Panchayat, Faruqnagar Mandal,

¶29

¶30

Mahabubnagar District in Andhra Pradesh in favour of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, but was not in a position to hand over the possession of the said site or construct a building as promised. Hence, respondent No.2 has initiated both civil and criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein and in the process have registered PCR No.5945/2017 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. The trial Court has referred the matter for investigation to the first respondent - Police. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶31

The case of the petitioners apart from other things is that the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to try the case. It is submitted that the complainant i.e., second and third respondents herein are ordinary residents of USA and the transaction happened in Hyderabad and the property is situated in Andhra Pradesh and that the payments was made from USA and there is no

¶32

¶33

cause of action that has arisen within the jurisdiction of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 submits that the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore has no jurisdiction to try the case.

¶35

Learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the petitioners / accused are guilty of the offences alleged in the complaint and lack of jurisdiction on the part of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore should not result in petitioners going scot-free. Admittedly, the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore does not have the jurisdiction to try the case, as the cause of action has not arisen within the jurisdiction of the Court and the respondent Nos.2 and 3, if aggrieved should present the private complaint to the jurisdictional Court.

¶36

For the said reason, without going into the merits of the case, the petition is hereby allowed reserving

¶37

¶38

liberty to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to initiate appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Court / Police Station. Hence, the following:-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. The petition is allowed .

¶41

ii. The proceedings in PCR No.5945/2017 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan

¶42

Magistrate, Bangalore, insofar as it relates to

¶43

the petitioners herein are hereby quashed.

¶44

Liberty is reserved to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to initiate appropriate action against the petitioners, if they are so aggrieved before the jurisdictional Police Station / Court.

¶45

In view of disposal of the main petition, interlocutory applications, if any do not survive for consideration and the same are hereby disposed of.

¶46

SD/JUDGE

¶47

VMB

Maruthi Corporation Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruthi Corporation Ltd. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Linet Usha D Mello Vs Mr Agnel Benet Vijay D Mello

Annegowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Smt Sharanya K N Vs Sri Nihal N

Khaleel Khan P Vs Sunil Kumar G C

Khaleel Khan P Vs Sri. Saddam Peer

Khaleel Khan P Vs Sri Y M Jayakumar Raju