Allowed

Smt Bhagyalakshmi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023CRL.P/7135/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings in CC No.11888/2016 concerning offences under Sections 420/201 IPC. The parties had amicably resolved the civil dispute, the accused returned possession and cancelled the lease deed, and the respondent agreed to withdraw allegations, rendering the trial futile.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed and the impugned proceeding in CC No.11888/2016 is quashed.

Smt Bhagyalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36939 CRL.P No. 7135 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7135 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O SRI BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 10, DOOR NO 2, GROUND FLOOR, 12TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, MADIWALA, BANGALORE -560 068.

¶8

SRI.V. SRINIVAS, S/O VENKATANARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 10, HOUSE NO 9, 12TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, MADIWALA, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶9

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

¶10

SMT. BHAGYALAKSHMI W/O SRI LATE NARESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 10, HOUSE NO 4, 1ST FLOOR, 12TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, MADIWALA, BANGALORE -560 068.

¶11

SRI SAMPATH KUMAR D S/O SRI B DAVID, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 10 'A', 2ND FLOOR, 11TH CROSS, MARUTHINAGAR, MADIWALA, BANGALORE-560 068.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. RAJESH A, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MADIWALA POLICE STATION,

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36939 CRL.P No. 7135 of 2023

¶17

BANGALORE-560 068, REPRESENTED BY OFFICE OF SPP , HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

SRI SANDEEP KUMAR P V S/O VENKATASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 212, 20TH MAIN, 4TH CROSS, 6TH SECTOR, UCO BANK LAYOUT, BTM 1ST STAGE BANGALORE-560 076.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. K P YASHODA, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. H P LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDING IN C.C.NO.11888/2016 FOR ISSUANCE OF THE SUMMON BY TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC AND TO PASS ANY SUCH ORDER/S OR RELIEF/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ON THE FILE OF THE 32ND ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent No.1 - State.

¶25

Sri H P Leeladhar, learned counsel files power on behalf of the respondent No.2.

¶26

The petitioner - accused is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:36939 CRL.P No. 7135 of 2023

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that, the accused herein forged the signature of the mother of the defacto complainant and created the lease deed and occupied the premises belonging to the defacto complainant.

¶30

The parties, who are present before this Court, have filed a joint memo in support of the affidavit stating that the defacto complainant had filed RFA Nos.41, 45, 125 and 132 of 2020 challenging the order passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suits filed for eviction against the petitioners. The parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves in the said appeals. In terms of the settlement, the accused have handed over the vacant peaceful possession of the premises alleged to have been leased to them and also cancelled the lease deed. Further, the respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw all the allegations made against the petitioners and he has no objection for quashing the impugned proceeding. The joint memo is placed on record.

¶31

Though the offences are cognizable and noncompoundable, however, having regard to the fact that, the parties have amicably settled the dispute among themselves, and the respondent No.2 having agreed to withdraw all the allegations made by him, it would be futile exercise if the petitioner - accused is subjected to trial, since the probability of their conviction is remote and bleak in view of the settlement. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36939 CRL.P No. 7135 of 2023

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶35

ii) The impugned proceeding in CC No.11888/2016 pending on the file of the learned 32nd Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

BKM

Smt Bhagyalakshmi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bhagyalakshmi 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

A Alok Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K P Manjuprakash Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Kamala Joshi Vs Mrs. Ranjana Joshi

Yogesh Vs State of Karnataka

B M Chandrashekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Kumar Vs State of Karnataka