Allowed

Sri Vijay Nayak M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2023CRL.P/1722/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed to quash prosecution for theft due to amendment. Petitioner and respondent settled. Petitioner agreed to compound offense. Petitioner resisting pending litigation against his father. Court allowed settlement application and quashed proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No.30474/2017 under Section 380 IPC against the petitioner are quashed.

Sri Vijay Nayak M Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:31658 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1722 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. VIJAY NAYAK M S/O LATE B.L. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, NO.1229, 17^TH MAIN, 1^ST STAGE, 1^ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560029

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RENSPRE PRITHESH D'SOUZA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHENNAMMANAKERE P.S. (C.K. ACHUKATTU P.S.) BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU CITY. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-01.

¶13

MS. POOJA GANDHI D/O PAVAN GANDHI, R/AT FLAT NO.5021, 2^ND FLOOR, PRESTIGE SOUTH RIDGE APARTMENTS, DATTATREYA NAGAR, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANGALORE-560085.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN A., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶16

SRI. S. BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:31658 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2019

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.30474/2017 ON THE FILE OF II A.C.M.M., BANGALORE (CR.NO.115/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE C.K., ACHAKATTU P.S.,) BANGALORE.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution initiated against him in C.C.No.30474/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) pending trial before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'the Trial Court').

¶22

The respondent No.2 had alleged that the petitioner had approached her in connection with the production of a movie, which did not take off. She claimed that during September 2014, she realized that 3 cheques were missing and hence issued appropriate notice to the bank to stop the payment. She alleged that the petitioner had presented the cheques and therefore she alleged that

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:31658 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2019

¶24

the petitioner had stolen the cheques and attempted to encash them. Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.115/2015 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet for an offence under Section 380 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance and issued process to the petitioner, who has filed this petition.

¶25

The petitioner and respondent No.2 have amicably settled the dispute and have filed an application in I.A.No.1/2023 to compound the offence committed by the petitioner. It is stated in the affidavit accompanying the application that the respondent No.2 has agreed to compound the offence committed by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner had initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the father of respondent No.2 which is presently pending consideration in Criminal Appeal Nos.1143/2023 and 1144/2023 before the LIX Additional

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:31658 CRL.P No. 1722 of 2019

¶27

City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH No.60), Bengaluru. The petitioner has no objection to allow the appeals referred above.

¶28

The petitioner and respondent No.2 are present

¶29

in person before the Court and are identified by their respective counsel. Both of them agree that they have understood the terms of settlement.

¶30

Consequently, I.A. No.1/2023 is allowed and in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, this petition is allowed and the impugned prosecution of the petitioner in C.C. No.30474/2017 pending trial before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is quashed.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE

¶32

SMA

¶33

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri Vijay Nayak M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vijay Nayak M 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

Mrs Jessie Mary Fernandes Vs Sub Inspector

Sri K N Rangapriya Vs Karnataka Samskrit University

Major General S G Vombatkere Vs Union of India

S Girish Kumar Vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

M/S Precitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply

Smt Jhansi Lakshmi Vs State of Karnataka