Allowed

Mr Gaurav Chatterjee v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2023CRL.P/8692/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an advocate representing Respondent No. 2 in a dispute with Respondent No. 1, sought to quash his criminal proceedings (FIR) alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust arising from a settlement dispute. The Court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

FIR registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 115/2021 is quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

Mr Gaurav Chatterjee Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44644 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8692 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. GAURAV CHATTERJEE S/O SRI. SANKAR CHATTERJEE, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OFFICE AT KOCHHAR AND CO., ADVOCATE AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS, SUITE 305, DELTA WING, 3^RD FLOOR, 'RAHEJA TOWERS', NO.177, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU -600002 (BY SRI. D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SYED SHUJATH MEHDI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BIAL POLICE STATION, DEVANAHALLI SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

MR. DR. EASWAR SRIKUMAR S/O K.V. EASWAR IYER, AGE 72 YEARS, R/AT NO.537, 8^TH CROSS J.P. NAGAR 3^RD PHASE, BENGALURU CITY-560078

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

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

¶15

SMT. K.R.ROOPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44644 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2021

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CASE PENDING IN FIR BEARING CR.NO.115/2021 DATED 22.10.2021 ON THE FILE OF THE BIAL P.S., DEVANAHALLI, SUB DIVISION UNDER SECTION 406, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE LD. ACJ AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI AND SAID FIR QUA THE PETITIONER AND PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THERE FROM MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has sought for quashing the FIR registered by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.115/2021 pending consideration before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 406 and 420 of IPC.

¶21

The respondent No.1 registered Crime No.115/2021 on 21.10.2021 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 406 and 420 of IPC on the basis of information furnished by the respondent No.2 who alleged commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioner and others. The respondent No.2 alleged that he was an employee and a power of attorney of Mr. Lal Manghanmal Hiranand and his family members who were residing in Hong Kong. He was

¶22

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44644 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2021

¶23

entrusted with the responsibility to take care of their assets in India. He and his wife were appointed as executors in the Will dated 18.12.1999 executed by Mr. Lal Manghanmal Hiranand

¶24

and therefore he was taking care of the entire property mentioned in the Will. Further he claimed that Mrs. Kamla Lal w/o Mr. Lal had executed a special power of attorney in his favour on 11.09.1998 and that he was discharging his duties between August, 1995 to September, 2001 on her behalf. He alleged that there were several disputes between him and Mrs.Kamla Lal and that she obtained a default judgment of 5 million Dollars against him by furnishing false documents and affidavits in the High Court of Singapore and caused a paper publication. Thereafter she allegedly lodged a false case before the District Court in Changalpet, claiming Rs.54,00,00,000/which was dismissed. He claimed that Mrs. Kamla Lal wanted to settle the matter amicably by paying up a sum of Rs.2,20,00,000/- to him. She, through her counsel Kocchar & Company, Chennai approached him and requested him to settle the matter and also made several requests to handover documents that were lying with respondent No.2. He allegedly agreed to all her conditions and instructed his lawyers to

¶25

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44644 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2021

¶26

convey his acceptance of the terms offered by her. Based on this, the respondent No.2 and Mrs. Kamla Lal along with the petitioner and others met on 06.05.2019 at Hotel Taj, Bengaluru International Airport to decide the modalities of the settlement. An escrow agreement was executed between the respondent No.2 and Mrs. Kamala Lal appointing Mr. Partha Mandal and his legal assistant as their escrow agent to mediate. He alleged that there were three bouncers escorting Mrs. Kamla Lal who were at the meeting. He alleged that Mrs. Kamla Lal after scrutinizing the documents informed the escrow agent that she was satisfied with the documents and agreed to pay 3,00,000 U.S. Dollars to the respondent No.2 on the same day. She addressed a letter to the escrow agent informing her interest to collect the documents. Accordingly, her escrow agent provided three remittance certificates to the respondent No.2, based on which the respondent No.2 agreed to part with the documents. He alleged that one remittance certificate was for 1,20,000 U.S. Dollars, another remittance advice for 60,000 U.S. Dollars was made by her friend Husin Arjath and another Transfer Advice for 1,20,000 U.S. Dollars was made by her son. The respondent No.2 alleged that the escrow agent

¶27

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44644 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2021

¶28

did not even care to see whether the fund transfer certificates were genuine or not. He alleged that thinking that all remittances were credited into his account, he parted with the documents. He claimed that he entered into an agreement with Mrs. Kamla Lal on the same day in the presence of her escrow agents, namely, the petitioner. He alleged that when he approached his bank to verify the remittances, he found only two remittances were credited to his account while the remittance of 1,20,000 U.S. Dollars was not traceable. He therefore alleged that Mrs. Kamla Lal did not make the payment and due to FEMA regulations, he could not get the other two remittances released.

¶29

The respondent No.2 alleged that when he sought for an explanation as to why the remittance of 1,20,000 U.S. Dollars was not credited, he was informed that the remittance was not completed due to technical issues and that it would be reversed to the account of Mrs.Kamla Lal and thereafter she would pay the entire amount to the respondent No.2. This purportedly was confirmed by the Counsel for Mrs.Kamla Lal in Hong Kong to her Counsel Kochhar & Company, Chennai. However, he alleged that even after two years and six months

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:44644 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2021

¶32

she did not bother to pay the amount. He therefore alleged that Mrs. Kamla Lal and her escrow agent were guilty of cheating by withholding the payments which Mrs. Kamla Lal had agreed to pay under the Settlement Agreement dated 07.05.2019.

¶33

The petitioner was the Counsel who was advising Mrs.Kamla Lal in a professional capacity and is now sought to be involved in the investigation of the offence alleged against Mrs.Kamla Lal. The petitioner has therefore filed this petition to quash the proceedings.

¶34

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a lawyer and a partner in a reputed Law Firm in India. He contended that the respondent No.2 who had crossed swords with Mrs. Kamla Lal in Ex.P. No.46/2014 pending before the District Court, Changalpattu, approached the Firm where the petitioner was employed for a settlement of the dispute. Thereafter, negotiations ensued outside the court which was attended by the petitioner and others. The parties entered into a settlement in terms of which Mrs.Kamla Lal was to pay a

¶35

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:44644 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2021

¶36

certain sum of money and receive various documents which were in the custody of the respondent No.2. Accordingly, a settlement agreement was drawn up on 07.05.2019 in terms of which certain documents were agreed to be handed over to Mrs.Kamla Lal and she had to pay a certain amount of money as ex-gratia to the respondent No.2. He submits that the respondent No.2 has now accused that Mrs.Kamla Lal has not paid the promised amount and therefore has lodged the instant complaint. He submits that the petitioner is no way involved in the alleged offence and hence involving the petitioner in the investigation is unwarranted and would be an abuse of the process of law.

¶37

The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the investigation is yet to be taken up to know the role of the petitioner and therefore prayed that this court may not exercise the jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

¶38

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner was one of the Advocates advising Mrs.Kamala Lal and in whose presence it was represented that 3,00,000 U.S. Dollars would be remitted to the account of the

¶39

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:44644 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2021

¶40

respondent No.2. He submitted that one remittance of 1,20,000 U.S. Dollars was not credited into the account of the respondent No.2. She therefore submits that the petitioner knowing fully well that the remittance of 1,20,000 U.S. Dollars was fake, had conspired with Mrs.Kamla Lal and therefore his role needs to be investigated.

¶41

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶42

The petitioner is an Advocate whose services were engaged by Mrs.Kamla Lal to negotiate a settlement with the respondent No.2. It is not in dispute that the respondent No.2 and Mrs. Kamla Lal arrived at a settlement which was recorded in terms of an agreement dated 07.05.2019. As part of the settlement, Mrs. Kamla Lal had to remit 3,00,000 U.S. Dollars to the account of the respondent No.2 and he was supposed to hand over certain documents to Mrs.Kamla Lal. The respondent No.2 was satisfied with the remittance advice furnished to him by Mrs.Kamla Lal and he accordingly handed over the documents to Mrs.Kamla Lal. If one of the remittances was not

¶43

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:44644 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2021

¶44

credited into the account of the respondent No.2, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for that. There is not even a whisper in the entire complaint that the petitioner knew before hand that one of the remittances would not be credited into the account of the respondent No.2. On the contrary, the respondent No.2 claimed that when he contacted Mrs.Kamla Lal, she informed him that the remittance could not be made due to technical issue and that she would make appropriate arrangements for the transfer of the amount to his personal account. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be accused of offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be deprecated in the strongest terms possible.

¶45

In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered by respondent No.1 against the petitioner in Cr.No.115/2021 is quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

bvv

¶48

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

Mr Gaurav Chatterjee v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Gaurav Chatterjee 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

Sreelakshmi Swasayaya Sangha Vs Smt Mangalagowri

Smt Lakshminarasamma Vs Sri Narasimha Murthy

Sri. S. Srinivasalu Vs Smt. B. Malliga

Mr Kamal Rameshbhai Sheth Vs M/S Shivangini Properties Pvt. Ltd.

Thipperudraswamy T Vs Swathi

Sayeeda Nazimunnisa Vs Mr Mohammed Azam Ahmed