Allowed

Mrs. Shylaja Iyer v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2022CRL.P/5077/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a former company director. The court held that since the dispute regarding her alleged resignation is pending in a civil court, no dishonest intention for theft can be inferred, and continued criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.30446/2018 pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore are hereby quashed.

Mrs. Shylaja Iyer Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5077/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. SHYLAJA IYER AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WIFE OF RAVINDRA IYER, RESIDING AT NO.721/11, 41ST CROSS, 3RD BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VACHAN H.V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 037, REPRESENTED BY SPP HCK, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

M/S BROOKEFIELD TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, E-1381, AECS LAYOUT, KUNDANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶14

¶15

MR. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

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

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPGUNED CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO.329/2018 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE HAL POLICE STATION BEFORE THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Respondent No.2 filed the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioner-accused though ceased to be the director of the company refused to return the car and the mobile which was entrusted to her by the company during her tenure as the director of the Company.

¶22

The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the

¶23

Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Police after investigation submitted the charge sheet before the

¶24

¶25

learned Magistrate for the offence punishable under Sections 379 and 406 of IPC. The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons against which this present petition is filed.

¶26

Mr. Dhananjay Joshi, learned senior counsel

¶27

appearing for Mr. H.V.Vachan, learned counsel for the petitioner would make the following submissions:

¶28

a) In the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioner-accused, the filing of the charge sheet is without any substance.

¶29

b) The dispute between the parties arises out of the acceptance of alleged resignation of the petitioner-accused as the director of the company, however, private complaint was filed by giving it a criminal texture so as to pressurize the petitioner-accused to return the car and the mobile which was entrusted to her during her tenure as the director of the company.

¶30

¶31

c). The private complaint is filed after two years from the date of acceptance of the alleged resignation of the petitioner-accused which clearly implies that the complaint filed was an afterthought so as to falsely implicate the petitioneraccused.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that petitioner-accused having resigned as the director of the company was under an obligation to return the car and the mobile which was entrusted to her during her tenure as the director of the company by not returning the same has committed the offences. Hence, he submits that the charge sheet does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition. In support, reliance is placed on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of K Neelaveni -vs- State Rep. By Inspector of Police and Others reported in 2010 (2) Supreme 543 .

¶33

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶34

¶35

The dispute with regard to the acceptance of alleged resignation of the petitioner-accused was the subject matter in O.S.No.3554/2016 and in the said suit respondent No.2 after entering appearance filed the written statement. It is during the pendency of the said suit, private complaint was filed by the respondent No.2.

¶36

To constitute an offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC, there must be a dishonest intention on the part of the accused in mis-appropriating the property entrusted to him by the complainant. In the present case, the dispute is with regard to the alleged resignation of the petitioner-accused which was pending consideration before the Jurisdictional Civil Court. Hence, it cannot be inferred that there was dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner-accused in mis-appropriating the Car entrusted to her.

¶37

In the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the aforesaid offence, filing of the charge sheet by the Police is without any substance. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that during the course of

¶38

¶39

investigation, the car which was entrusted to the petitioneraccused has been seized and is in the custody of the second respondent-Company. Since the issue involved in this petition is already pending consideration before the Civil Court, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioneraccused will be an abuse of process of law.

¶40