Allowed

Brainly India Private Limited v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023WP/5961/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC allowed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging cheating and forgery. The court held that since parties amicably settled the dispute and the respondent consented, further investigation was an abuse of process, so the FIR was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No.18/2023 registered by Cubbon Park Police Station stands quashed against all expenses in its entirety.

Brainly India Private Limited Vs State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:35667 WP No. 5961 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5961 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BRAINLY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AT, WE WORK GALAXY, 43, RESIDENCY RD, SHANTHALA NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 025, REP BY ALAKIRI K A, DIRECTOR, THE REGISTER UNDER COMPANY'S ACT 2013.

¶8

MR ALAKIRI K A SON OF K ASAITHAMBI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT 610, CLAYTON PARK, FLOOR F1, 1ST C MAIN, 1ST CROSS, DOMLUR LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 071.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR MS. SAMRIDDHI SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CUBBON PARK, POLICE STATION, REP. BY THE LD. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT BENGALURU 560 001.

¶14

MR ADNAN AHMAD SIDDIQUI ON BEHALF OF AWFIS SPACE SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., WITH REGISTERED OFFICER AT NO C-28-29, QUTUB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI-110 016.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. SANJAY H SETHIYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASHING THE FIRST

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:35667 WP No. 5961 of 2023

¶18

INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.18/2023 DATED 01.02.2023 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT , CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, BENGALURU AND THE COMPLAINANT DATED 01.02.2023 FOR OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE PENAL UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, AND 425 R/W SECTION 120-B OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXURE-B, THE ONLY PETITIONER NO 1 AND 2 CONCERNED.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Mr. Sanjay H Sethiya, learned counsel files power on behalf of respondent No.2. The same is placed on record.

¶22

2^nd respondent lodged the FIR alleging that a service agreement was entered into between the parties on 31.1.2022 and the petitioners unilaterally canceled the service agreement so as to defraud the complainant. The registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 425 r/w Section 120B of IPC is impugned in this petition.

¶23

Heard Mr. Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel for Ms. Samriddhi Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1, and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶24

Parties are present before this Court and they have filed a Memorandum of Settlement along with the joint affidavit of settlement stating that, parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, and in terms of the settlement, petitioners have agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3 Crore 70 Lakh to the 2^nd respondent towards full and final settlement of security deposit and payment of GST. The same are placed on record.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:35667 WP No. 5961 of 2023

¶27

2^nd respondent who is present before this Court acknowledges the receipt of a sum of Rs.3 Crore 70 Lakh through Demand Draft subject to realization, and further states that he has no objection for quashing the impugned FIR.

¶28

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 respondent having no objection for quashing the impugned FIR, it would be a futile exercise to subject the petitioners for investigation, since the probability of Police filing the charge sheet is unlikely, in view of the settlement. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. The writ petition is allowed

¶31

ii. The impugned FIR in Crime No.18/2023 registered by the Cubbon Park Police Station, on the file of the 3^rd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru, stands quashed against all expenses in its entirety.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

Brainly India Private Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brainly India Private Limited 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

Sri Viswanathan Subrahmanyam Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Venkatesh Prasad Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Girish Chandra Vs State of Karnataka

K. Sunil Kumar Vs State by Bagalur Police

Mr. Pradeep Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri Lokesh v. Vs the State of Karnataka