Allowed

Srinivasa L v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023CRL.P/2322/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging forgery. The Court held that despite the offence being cognizable and non-compoundable, the continuation of investigation would be an abuse of process of law given the parties had amicably settled the dispute.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed; the impugned FIR in Crime No.198/2022 stands quashed.

Srinivasa L Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40244 CRL.P No. 2322 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2322 OF 2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRINIVASA L S/O LATE N K LAKSHMAN AGED AOBUT 50 YEARS NO 1559/9, B BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGARA BENGALURU 560 092.

¶7

SRI NAGARAJU H S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO 25/3, 2ND MAIN, 28TH CROSS NEAR FRIENDS FUNCTION HALL PALANA JOGIHALLI (JP NAGR) BENGALURU-560 078.

¶8

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

¶9

NAGESH V S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA 12TH CROSS, NEAR VENKATARAMANA TEMPLE SREE ANANT, BENGALURU-560 099.

¶10

GUNDAYYA S/O KENDASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO 761, KUMBAR STREET NEAR MAJESTIC CIRCLE KANAKAPURA-562 117 RAMNAGARA DISTRICT.

¶11

MANJUNATH S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS NO 15, CHINNADAHALLI HOSKOTE TALUK-562 114 BENGALURU RURL DISTRICT …PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. VINOD M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SATYANARAYANA S CHALKE, ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40244 CRL.P No. 2322 of 2023

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU 562 101. 2. MUNISWAMY WODEYAR AGE MAJOR, S/O NOT KNOW TO PETITIONERS NO 123/24, 5TH CROSS AGRAHARA, JAKKUR LAYOUT YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. A D ANJAN KUMAR AND SRI. AMBRISH B N, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATE 24.11.2022 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 KALASIPALYA POLICE STATION IN CR.NO.00198/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420, 465 R/W 34 OF IPC 1860, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 8TH ADDL.CMM COURT BENGALURU.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The 2nd respondent lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioners herein by forging the signature of the 2nd respondent created the resolution purported to show that they are continued to be the office bearers of the Co-operative Society, and submitted the same with the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for approval.

¶22

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2-informant are present before this Court and an application is filed under Section 320 r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of the

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40244 CRL.P No. 2322 of 2023

¶24

offences, stating that, at the instance of the well wishers, the petitioners and the respondent No.2 amicably resolved the dispute among themselves and the FIR was lodged on the advice of ill-wishers, and respondent No.2 does not intend to continue to prosecute the petitioners herein.

¶25

The application is placed on record.

¶26

Though the offences alleged against the petitionersaccused herein are cognizable and non-compoundable, however, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioners-accused are subjected to investigation, since the probability of Police filing the charge sheet is unlikely in view of the settlement arrived. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶29

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.198/2022, registered by the Kalasipalya Police Station, on the file of the 8th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, stands quashed.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Srinivasa L v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Srinivasa L 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahammad Jaufar Vs State by

Ms. Simi Kalakamba Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Elizabeth Vs State of Karnataka

Ashwini Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Abhishek Rana, Vs State of Karnataka by

Managing Director Vs Food Safety Officer