Allowed

Sri. Kirti Kantilal Mehta v. State by Sheshadripuram Police

Karnataka HC31 Oct 2023CRL.P/2040/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed proceedings under Sections 120B, 420, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The complainant settled the dispute regarding apartment booking, received the advance, and withdrew opposition to the quashing petition.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings against the petitioners in Criminal Case No.12473/2019 for Section 120B, 420, 506 IPC are quashed.

Sri. Kirti Kantilal Mehta Vs State by Sheshadripuram Police — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:38624 CRL.P No. 2040 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2040 OF 2020

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. KIRTI KANTILAL MEHTA S/O KANTILAL MEHTA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS #36, UNISHIRE SQUARE RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMAR PARK WEST BENGALURU 560 020.

¶7

PRESENTLY AT NO.42 2^ND FLOOR, CASTLE STREET ASHOK NAGAR BANGALORE 560 025.

¶8

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI PRATIK K. MEHTA S/O KIRTI KANTILAL MEHTA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS #36, UNISHIRE SQUARE RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD KUMAR PARK WEST BENGALURU 560 020

¶10

PRESENTLY AT NO.42 2^ND FLOOR, CASTEL STREET ASHOK NAGAR BANGALORE 560 025.

¶11

SRI VINAY K MEHTA S/O KIRTI KANTILAL MEHTA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS #36, UNISHIRE SQUARE RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD

¶12

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:38624 CRL.P No. 2040 of 2020

¶13

KUMAR PARK WEST BENGALURU 560 020 PRESENTLY AT NO.42 2^ND FLOOR, CASTLE STREET ASHOK NAGAR BANGALORE 560 025.

¶14

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI.G S VENKATA SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶15

STATE BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560 001.

¶16

SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR PATIL S/O RAMACHANDRA PATIL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS NO.48, 1^ST CROSS LAKSHMAMMA LAYOUT NEAR BALDWIN SCHOOL BANASAWADI BANGALORE 560 043

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT/FIR AND ALSO THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN C.C.NO.12473/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 420, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC BEFORE THE 32 A.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE A, B AND C RESPECTIVELY.

¶19

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

¶20

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:38624 CRL.P No. 2040 of 2020

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution

¶23

launched against him in CC No.12473/2019 by respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B and 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending trial before LVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru.

¶24

The facts in brief are that, respondent NO.2 had

¶25

booked an apartment with the petitioners at a Project undertaken by them named M/s.Unishire Housing LLP at Sy.No.85/1, 85/2, 85/3B and 85/4 situate at Rachenahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East taluk. Respondent no.2 stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being the booking amount and whenever he went to enquire about the Project, he was threatened of his life by the petitioners. Based on this, respondent no.1 registered Crime No.23/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 120B, 420,506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:38624 CRL.P No. 2040 of 2020

¶28

When the petition was listed for admission, a

¶29

joint memo is filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2. It is stated by respondent No.2 that he has resolved the dispute with the petitioners and he does not wish to prosecute the petitioners and therefore concedes to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶30

They have also placed on record an agreement dated 2.6.2022 executed by the owner of the land bearing Survey Nos.85/1, 85/2, 85/3B and 85/4 totally admeasuring about 3 acres in area situated in Rachenahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk between respondent No.2 and similarly situated persons.

¶31

Respondent No.2 who is present in person admits that he has settled the dispute with the petitioners and he is no longer interested to continue the prosecution. He has also admitted that he has received the advance amount and does not wish to oppose this petition.

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:38624 CRL.P No. 2040 of 2020

¶33

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed and the impugned prosecution of petitioners in CC No.12473/2019 by respondent no.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending trial before LVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road,

¶34

Bengaluru, is quashed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Sri. Kirti Kantilal Mehta v. State by Sheshadripuram Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Kirti Kantilal Mehta v. State by Sheshadripuram Police

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

Smt Meenakshi Yadav Vs the State by Kadagodi Police Station

Rangaswamy @ Chinnakatte Rangappa Vs M. Karun

M/S Cheluvambika Pictures Vs C Kalyan

Smt Lakshmi Vs Smt v Kamalakshi

K. Anantha Padmanaba Char Vs Smt. K. Nagamani @ Subha. S

Sri K D Veerappa Vs the State of Karnataka