Allowed

Mr. C.Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Sept 2023CRL.P/6739/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR and proceedings for offences under Sections 406, 420, 109 and 34 IPC. The petition was quashed due to a settled compromise in the related civil dispute between the parties.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the petitioner's prosecution in C.C.No.4269/2020 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 109 read with 34 of IPC.

Mr. C.Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:33215 CRL.P No. 6739 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6739 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. C.MOHAN S/O. LATE SRI CHANDRA MOULI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23, 4^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS, MARUTHI EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560021

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. MEDHA HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKRAM SIMHA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, RAJAGOPALA NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560086

¶13

MRS. SAVITHA G W/O. LATE R. VASUDEVAN, AGED MAJOR NO.70, 13^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST, BANGALORE-560011

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM A., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶16

SRI. K.P.BHUVAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.505/2016 DATED 04.06.2016, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:33215 CRL.P No. 6739 of 2020

¶20

COURT OF IV A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.4269/2020 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution launched against him in C.C.No.4269/2020 pending trial before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 109 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short).

¶24

An investigation was launched against the petitioner

¶25

and others by the respondent No.1 on the basis of information furnished by respondent No.2 on 31.05.2016 that she had obtained an agreement of sale dated 03.12.2010 in respect of a plot in Brindavan layout at Laggere from the Narasimhamurthy (accused No.2) and Nagendrasimha (accused No.3). She claimed that she had paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to accused Nos.2 and 3 and later had paid the entire agreed sale consideration. She alleged that when she approached the accused Nos.2 and 3, requesting them to conclude the transaction and to execute the conveyance deed, they were protracting the same on one or the other ground. Hence, she

¶26

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:33215 CRL.P No. 6739 of 2020

¶27

filed a complaint against the accused Nos.2 and 3 which was registered as Cr.No.627/2015 and also filed a suit in O.S.No.7322/2015. In the meanwhile, the accused Nos.1 and 2 had executed some document in favour of the accused No.4 in respect of the very same property. The respondent No.1 after investigation filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 109 read with Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and registered C.C.No.4269/2020 and issued process.

¶28

The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 herein and the accused No.3/petitioner herein have reported a settlement in O.S.No.7322/2015, in terms of which, the respondent No.2 has received a total consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- from the accused Nos.2 and 3 and have settled the dispute. She also pointed out to the compromise petition whereby respondent No.2 had conceded to quash the case in Cr.No.627/2015 filed by her against accused Nos.2 and 3 and consequently, the charge sheet as well as the order taking cognizance. She therefore contends that since respondent No.2 and accused Nos.2 and 3 have settled the dispute, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:33215 CRL.P No. 6739 of 2020

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.

¶32

Since the respondent No.2 and accused Nos.2 and 3

¶33

have settled the dispute relating to the agreement dated 03.12.2010 entered into between accused Nos.2 and 3 and respondent No.2, the further criminal proceedings against the petitioner is wholly unwarranted.

¶34

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed and the impugned prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.4269/2020 (Cr.No.505/2016) for the offences

¶35

punishable under Sections 406, 420, 109 read with 34 of IPC pending before IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru is quashed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Mr. C.Mohan v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. C.Mohan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T Keshav Prasad Vs M N Doreswamy

Sri Ravi Shankar Jha Vs State of Karnataka

Noorulla Hassan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. G. Lakshman Singh Vs Kum. Neha @ Rakshita

Mr. Gopal B Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Revanna Vs State of Karnataka