Allowed

Pragbhaldas K v. Vs State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2023CRL.P/1140/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR filed after petitioners filed a civil suit for recovery of money and obtained a decree. Court held dispute is civil in nature and quashed FIR as continuance would be abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.214/2018 of Malleshwaram police Station, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, is hereby quashed.

Pragbhaldas K v Vs State of Karnataka by — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 1140 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1140 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRAGBHALDAS K.V. S/O PREMA V.S. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

¶8

PREMDAS

¶9

S/O PREMA V.S. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶10

PRAVEEN NAIR

¶11

S/O PREMA V.S. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF M/S MONNAIE INTERIOR DESIGNERS PVT. LTD NO.7, 1ST KORAMANGALA BENGALURU CITY - 560 034 KARNATAKA.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALLESWARAM POLICE STATION BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING - 560 001.

¶18

BALAKRISHNA S/O LATE NARASARAJU

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 1140 of 2019

¶21

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O:NO.3, KASHIMUTT ROAD 19TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM BENGALURU-560 055.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S.DIWAKAR, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.K.ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.214/2018 OF MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU (RESPONDENT NO.1) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860 PENDING BEFORE THE IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Respondent No.2 lodged the F.I.R. alleging that, petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 promising to carry out interior design of the house belonging to respondent No.2 received money from respondent No.2 and by not carrying out any work and not by returning the said amount have cheated the respondent No.2. Police registered F.I.R. for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 406, 420 of IPC. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶28

Learned counsel for petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 submits that petitioners/accused have filed suit for recovery

¶29

Page No.2 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 20.06.2024

¶30

3 - CRL.P No. 1140 of 2019

¶31

against respondent No.2 for recovery of the money due from respondent No.2 for having carried out the interior design in the house belonging to him and the said suit came to be decreed on 20.02.2021. He further submits that F.I.R. was lodged to circumvent the suit filed by the accused for recovering the dues from respondent No.2.

¶32

Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the ex-parte decree passed in the suit filed by the petitioners/accused have been re-called and the suit is restored to the file. He further submits that the Police after investigation have submitted the charge sheet before the learned Magistrate and the present petition is not maintainable, since the petitioners/accused have got a remedy to file an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that veracity of the allegation made in the F.I.R. cannot be gone into this stage and the same requires to be investigated further.

¶33

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

¶34

Petitioners/accused have filed suit in

¶35

O.S.No.103/2018 on 13.07.2018. It is only after the suit was

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 1140 of 2019

¶38

filed, the respondent No.2 lodged the F.I.R., which clearly implies that F.I.R. was lodged with an ulterior motive to circumvent the suit filed by petitioners/accused.

¶39

Dispute between the parties arises out of breach of memorandum of agreement entered into between the parties, by which, accused were entrusted to carry out the work of interior designing in the house belonging to respondent No.2, and in lieu of the same, respondent No.2 was required to pay the amount agreed towards the execution of the work. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, given a criminal texture.

¶40

The Police after investigation have prepared the charge sheet, however, before submission of charge sheet, this Court has stayed the further proceedings. The charge sheet having not been accepted by the learned Magistrate, the charge sheet which is prepared by the Police has no sanctity in the eye of law, unless and until it is accepted by the learned Magistrate and the cognizance of offence is taken on the basis of the said charge sheet. In view of the above, the continuation of

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 1140 of 2019

¶43

criminal proceedings against the petitioners/accused will be an abuse of process of law.

¶44

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

Criminal petition is allowed.

¶47

Impugned F.I.R. in Crime No.0214/2018 of

¶48

Malleshwaram police Station, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 is hereby quashed.

¶49

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration in

¶50

view of the disposal of the main matter.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

GPG

¶53

Page No.5 is retyped and replaced vide chamber order dated 20.06.2024 in pursuant to the Court order dated 06.03.2024

Pragbhaldas K v. Vs State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pragbhaldas K v. Vs 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

Swamy K L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri U Veerendra Hegde Vs State of Karnataka

Harisha Vs Savitha

Smt. Selvi Ceceliya a Vs Smt. Poornima

Ms. Ambujakshi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri a Elangovan Vs the Mysore Urban Development Authority