Allowed

Sri Mohammed Ibrahim v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023CRL.P/4996/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition for quashing proceedings in C.C. No. 18256/2020. The court ordered the quashing of charges against petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, and 420 r/w 34 of IPC, based on a settlement agreement and acknowledgment of receipt of compensation by the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 18256/2020 pending before the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore, were quashed.

Sri Mohammed Ibrahim Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40733 CRL.P No. 4996 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4996 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI MOHAMMED IBRAHIM S/O LATE ABDUL KAREEM AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 304, 6TH A MAIN ROAD HRBR LAYOUT, 2ND BLOCK, FLAT NO 401 BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶8

SRI KAREEM AMJAD KHAN S/O ABDUL KAREEM AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 01, FORTUNE SQUARE FLAT NO 501, CARLETON ROAD OPP. ITC FACTORY, COX TOWN FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560 005 ALSO AT NO.8, FLAT NO.405, 5TH FLOOR RITA MANOR, CALLTON ROAD BENGALURU - 560 005.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

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

¶11

(BY SRI. CHANDRA L, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY UPPARPET POLICE STATION REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

SRI ASHOK R JAIN S/O M RIKHB CHAND, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 401, PANCHASHEELA APARTMENT 3RD FLOOR, 3RD CROSS GANDHINAGAR BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. N KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40733 CRL.P No. 4996 of 2022

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO. 18256/2020 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE C AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST PETITIONERS FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 465, 468, 471, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, BANGALORE IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER HEREIN CONCERN.

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 OF IPC.

¶20

2. The case of the prosecution is that, accused Nos.1 and 2 are in the business of construction and they had obtained a power of attorney from C.W.8 to C.W.14 for development of the property belonging to them.

¶21

3. BBMP had acquired a portion of the said property measuring 800 sq ft and TDR certificate was issued in lieu of compensation. The complainant and his mother had purchased the said TDR certificate in the year 2018 for a sum of Rs.58 Lakh. At that point of time, the GPA holders by forging the GPA got it notarized and submitted to BDA for transferring the TDR certificate. After verification of the documents, BDA officials on the basis of fabricated GPA transferred the TDR certificate.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:40733 CRL.P No. 4996 of 2022

¶24

4. The parties are present before this Court and have filed an application under Section 320 r/w 482 of Cr.P.C. for compounding of offences, along with memorandum of settlement, stating that, they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, and in terms of the settlement, the petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6 Lakh through cheque dated 11.9.2023 towards full and final settlement of the claim of the 2nd respondent, and the respondent No.2 who is present before this Court has acknowledged the receipt of the cheque subject to realization, and further he has stated that he has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶25

5. The application and the memorandum of settlement are taken on record.

¶26

6. Though the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable and non-compoundable, however, having regard to the fact that, the parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, and the defacto-complainant has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings, it would be a futile exercise, if the petitioners-accused are subjected to trial, since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak, in view of the settlement. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶27

7 . Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:40733 CRL.P No. 4996 of 2022

¶32

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.18256/2020, pending on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bangalore is hereby quashed.

¶33

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.A.No.1/2022, does not survive for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

Sri Mohammed Ibrahim v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Ibrahim 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

Usha C R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ramachandra M.C. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shwetha Vs State by Tumakuru Women Police Station

Sri. Giriswamy. D Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Mahesh Nayak Vs A.N. Shailaja

Sri. Chandan U Vs State of Karnataka