Allowed

Mr a v. Babin v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2023CRL.P/637/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under S.482 CrPC to quash an FIR alleging offences under IPC 406, 465, 468 IPC. Relying on a prior order quashing similar allegations against co-accused in the same dispute, the court held that the chequered allegations against the petitioner did not constitute an offence as the matter was a civil dispute over share patterns and GPA, causing

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Cr.No.301/2018 registered by Kadugodi Police Station is quashed insofar as it relates to accused No.5.

Mr a v Babin Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 637 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 637 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. A.V.BABIN, S/O A.K.VASU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, PARKWAY HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED, FORMER SENIOR MANAGER LEGAL, 4C/121, 4^TH CROSS, KASTHIRU NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 043.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ISMAIL M MUSBA., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KADUGODI P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE – 01.

¶13

RAJENDRA GOYAL, DESIGNATED PARTNER OF MRG REALTORS LLP, S/O MOTHIRAM GOYAL, R/A NO.113, PALLAVA TERRACES, OPP. YEDIYUR LAKE,

¶14

¶15

CRL.P No. 637 of 2019

¶16

KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE CITY – 560 008.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R1; SRI.S.JAGAN BABU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.301/2018 DATED 17.11.2018 AND COMPLAINT DATED 16.11.2018 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT KADUGODI POLICE STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B, 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, PRODUCED HERETO AS ANNEXURE - A AND B.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 120B, 406, 465, 468, 42 471 read with Section 34 of IPC, alleging that, the petitioner along with other accused entered into a Joint Development Agreement for development of the land, and as per the terms of the agreement, the developers were entitled to share to the extent of 65% of the undivided share, and the land owner was entitled for the remaining extent, and in pursuance of the said agreement, a General

¶23

¶24

CRL.P No. 637 of 2019

¶25

Power of Attorney was also executed, in favour of the petitioner to deal with the land, in manner that was specified in the GPA. It was further alleged that, the petitioners have conveyed 23 flats in apartment complex in Sy.No.118 to different purchasers.

¶26

The impugned FIR was challenged by accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 before this Court in Crl.P.No923/2020 and connected petition, and this Court by order dated 02.08.2022, quashed the impugned FIR as against the said accused, stating that the dispute is with regard sharing pattern, and if the accused therein have converted the property that was to be allotted to the share of the complainant in terms of the JDA, on the strength of GPA, which was in subsistence as on that date, it cannot be any offence of forgery as punishable under Sections 465 or 468 IPC.

¶27

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner as Legal Manager of the accused firm has connived with the other accused in committing the aforesaid offences. Hence, the registration of FIR does not warrant any interference.

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 637 of 2019

¶30

This Court in the aforesaid petition has quashed the

¶31

FIR stating that the allegations made against accused therein does not constitute an offence of forgery punishable under Sections 465 or 468 of IPC. The allegations made against the present petitioner is similar to that of accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 and so as to maintain parity, the impugned proceedings as against the accused No.5 requires to be quashed.

¶32

Even otherwise, the dispute between the parties arises out of breach of agreement, which does not constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused. In view of the same, the continuation of investigation against accused No.5 will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. Petition is allowed.

¶35

ii. The impugned FIR in Cr.No.301/2018 registered by the Kadugodi Police Station, insofar as it relates to accused No.5 is hereby quashed.

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 637 of 2019

¶38

iii. Any observations made in this order will not influence or bind the Civil Court when the civil suits are being adjudicated upon between the parties, which is admittedly pending between them.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

Mr a v. Babin v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr a v. Babin 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

Dr. Madhukar G. Angur Vs the Chief Secretary

S Vishwanath Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Gowtam Gopal Rao Kodikal Vs Registrar

Iskcon Charities Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sarasamma Vs Sri M Narasappa Reddy

Sri. Veeresh. B Vs Smt. Nandini. J. M.