Partly allowed

Sri Vinayaka Projects Firm v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2024CRL.P/103753/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of proceedings in a cheating and forgery case. The complainant had settled with accused Nos.1 and 2 through a memorandum of settlement and civil suit compromise but not with accused No.3, whose earlier quashing petition stood dismissed. The Court allowed the petition for accused Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed it as to accused No.3.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against petitioner Nos.1 & 2 in CC No.1068/2018 quashed; petition by accused No.3 dismissed.

Sri Vinayaka Projects Firm Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6375 CRL.P No. 103753 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103753/2023(482)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VINAYAKA PROJECTS FIRM, OFFICE AT THE CHANDRADOYA THEATRE,

¶9

VIDYAPEETA CIRCLE,

¶10

KATHIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR,

¶11

BENGALURU – 560 050.

¶12

A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER

¶13

THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI VIJYENDRA KUMAR A.

¶15

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

SRI VIJAYENDRA KUMAR A S/O. A. RUDRAPPA A., AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O: CHANDRODHAY THEATER, VIDYAPEETA CIRCLE, KATHIGUPPE MAIN ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 050.

¶17

SRI GANESH D.S. S/O. LATE SRI D.N.SUBBUKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, DOOR NO.202, BRIGADE GATE WAY

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6375 CRL.P No. 103753 of 2023

¶20

DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 055.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI AKARSH MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS HOSPET TOWN

¶25

POLICE STATION, HOSPET – 583 201, BALLARI DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD – 580 011.

¶26

SRI A. SURESH BABU

¶27

S/O. LATE SRI A. SHESHAGIRI RAO, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 1^ST MAIN ROAD, BEHIND KEB OFFICE, M.J.NAGAR, HOSPET, BALLARI DISTRICT: 583 201.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.L.PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1068/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HOSAPETE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 120B, 406, 417, 418, 468, 471, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶31

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

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6375 CRL.P No. 103753 of 2023

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petitioners-Accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1068/2018 pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hosapete (“the Trial Court” for short) for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 417, 418, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short).

¶35

Heard Sri Akarsh Mittalkod learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri K.L.Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.2 filed the First information with respondent No.1 and the FIR was came to be registered in Crime No.2/2018 for the above said offences. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed and now the matter is pending in C.C.No.1068/2018 before the Trial Court. During the pendency of the criminal case, respondent No.2-the complainant entered into the

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6375 CRL.P No. 103753 of 2023

¶38

memorandum of settlement dated 28.02.2023 with accused Nos.1 & 2 and the complainant has agreed to close the complaint by compounding the same. Similarly in the suit O.S.No.111/2018 pending before the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, a compromise petition was came to be filed under Order XXXIII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of CPC, wherein the complainant again agreed to compromise the criminal case. Under such circumstances, the complainant cannot proceed to prosecute C.C.No.1068/2018. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in the interest of justice. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the criminal petition.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-the complainant opposing the petition submitted that, accused No.3-petitioner No.3 had approached this Court seeking quashing the criminal proceedings by filing Crl.P.No.102080/2018. The said criminal petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2021, holding that, there are sufficient materials to proceed against accused No.3. Under such circumstances, accused No.3 could not have filed criminal

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6375 CRL.P No. 103753 of 2023

¶41

petition once again seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶42

Learned counsel further submitted that, the memorandum of settlement dated 28.02.2023 was entered into between accused Nos.1 & 2 and the complainant. Similarly the compromise was also entered into between the plaintiff and defendants in the suit O.S.No.111/2018. Either in the memorandum of settlement or in the compromise petition, petitioner No.3-accused No.3 is not a party. The complainant has never agreed to compound the offences against accused No.3. Under such circumstances, he prays for dismissing the petition filed by accused No.3. However, she concedes that there is a compromise between the complainant and accused Nos.1 & 2 and therefore the petition filed by them seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them could be allowed. Accordingly, he prays for passing of appropriate orders.

¶43

Perused the materials on record.

¶44

The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.1068/2018 pending before the Trial court. It is not in

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6375 CRL.P No. 103753 of 2023

¶46

dispute that the complainant had entered into a memorandum of settlement with accused Nos.1 and 2, wherein clause Nos.7 and 8, read as under:

¶47

“(7) The First Party has assured and undertakes to withdraw all the cases filed against the second party before the Civil Court at Hospet and shall have to take steps to file the necessary application in this regard within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the amount and also first party shall have to extend their co-operation in closure compounding of the criminal case in C.C.No.1068/2018 pending before Hospet Court, excluding the amount alleged to have been paid by the first party to Sri D.S.Ganesh as covered in CC No.1855/2017 pending on the file of the Hon’ble Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Hosapete. The first party may continue the said proceedings to get the justice.

¶48

(8) The First party states that, the settlement arrived as per this MOS is only pertaining to the transactions between first & second herein and this MOS is nowhere related to other than this transaction taken place between First party and Ganesh D.S.”

¶49

Similarly, the compromise petition was filed on

¶50

behalf of the plaintiff in suit O.S.No.111/2018 with defendants, who are petitioner Nos.1 & 2 herein (accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC.No.1068/2018), where the parties have agreed for the following terms in paragraph Nos.5 & 7, petition, which read as under:

¶51

“5. The plaintiff in pursuance of amount received from defendant No.1 executed the deed of cancellation of agreement of sale and the same has been registered at Kacharakanahalli sub registrar office, Bangalore, dated

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6375 CRL.P No. 103753 of 2023

¶53

06.03.2023. That there is no claims whatsoever by and between the parties hereto except the claim covered under the C.C.No.1855/2017 pending on the file of the Hon’ble 2^nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Hosapete. The plaintiff herein reserves his liberty to prosecute the claim covered under O.S.No.89/2018 pending on the file of the Hon’ble Court and CC No.1855/2017 pending on the file of the Hon’ble 2^nd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Hosapete.

¶54

The plaintiff herein has filed a complaint in terms sec 200 of Cr.P.C. and the same has been referred to town police station Hosapete and the investigation officer has laid the charge sheet which has been numbered as CC No.1068/2018 pending on the file of the Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Hosapete, wherein the DS Ganesh who is the accused No.3 of the said the proceedings. The plaintiff undertakes to cooperate to compound the offences if the accused No.1 and 2 (except the case against DS Ganesh the accused No.3) makes proper application/s to do so.”

¶55

Bare reading of the terms of the compromise

¶56

discloses that, the complainant has agreed to compromise the offences against accused Nos.1 & 2. Learned counsel for the complainant also concedes that there was compromise between the complainant and accused Nos.1 & 2. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to reject the claim of accused Nos.1 & 2, who are petitioner Nos.1 & 2 in the present criminal petition. Accordingly the petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 & 2 is liable to be allowed.

¶57

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:6375 CRL.P No. 103753 of 2023

¶58

Petitioner No.3 is accused No.3 in

¶59

C.C.No.1068/20418. Admittedly, he had approached this Court by filing Crl.P.No.102080/2018. The said petition was came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.07.2021, where it is held that there are prima facie materials to invoke the criminal provisions and therefore no grounds are made out for quashing the criminal proceedings against him. Accordingly the petition was came to be dismissed.

¶60

Even though the contention of petitioner No.3 that there was the memorandum of settlement and the compromise petition as referred to above, is admitted, it is also admitted that accused No.3 is not a party either to the memorandum of settlement or to the compromise petition. The clauses in the memorandum of settlement and the compromise petition as extracted above are inconsistent with the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner No.3 that the complainant had agreed to compound the offences against all the accused, including accused No.3. Therefore I am of the opinion that petitioner No.3 is liable to be face trial before the Trial Court. All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged by

¶61

¶62

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6375 CRL.P No. 103753 of 2023

¶63

petitioner No.3-accused No.3 before the Trial Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;

¶64

ORDER

¶65

The criminal petition is allowed in part.

¶66

The petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 & 2-accused Nos.1 & 2 is hereby allowed.

¶67

The criminal proceedings initiated against petitioner Nos.1 & 2 in CC.No.1068/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 417, 418, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed.

¶68

Petition filed by accused No.3 is hereby dismissed.

¶69

SD/JUDGE

¶70

EM/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri Vinayaka Projects Firm v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vinayaka Projects Firm 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

Narayansa S/O Takkusa Raibagi Since Deceased by Lrs Smt Prabhavathi Vs Mohansa S/O Nagusa Chawan

Rangappa S/O Govindappa Jalikatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Tulasa W/O Prakash Patil Vs the Tahsildar

Shankarappa S/O Solabappa Vs Solabappa

Athani Sugars Ltd., Vs the Joint Commissioner of

M/S. Shree Renuka Sugars Ltd., Vs the Joint Commissioner