Allowed

Star Health and Allied v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2024CRL.P/1197/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition quashing an FIR registered under IPC sections following an order directing police investigation. The court set aside the order and FIR, remitting the matter to the Magistrate to reconsider the case in light of undisclosed earlier Labour Court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 20.12.2022 and the consequent FIR in Crime No.179/2023 were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Magistrate for reconsideration of the PCR afresh considering earlier proc

Star Health and Allied Vs State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:22170 CRL.P No. 1197 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1197 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE CO LTD., NEW TANK STREET, VALLUVAR KOTTAM HIGH ROAD, NUNGAMBAKAM CHENNAI TAMIL NADU - 600 034.

¶8

REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, SRI MANU BATURA.

¶9

Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI MANU BATURA, S/O LATE VINOD BATURA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE CO LTD, NO.1, NEW TANK ROAD, VALLUVAR KOTTAM HIGH ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM CHENNAI - 600 034.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:22170 CRL.P No. 1197 of 2024

¶17

PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

SRI MUSULURI SRINIVAS RAO, S/O SRI M KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.SF-1, SWARNA MERIDIAN HOMES, ABOVE COFFEE DAY N S PALYA, B T M II STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SHAM A NEMICAL.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH FIR IN CR.NO.179/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ACMM, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU BY ARRAYING THE PETITIONER AS ACCUSED NO.1, 2 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE OFFENCE P/US. 423, 506, 204, 120-B, 420, 463 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition by the petitioner/accused in PCR No.17549/2022 (Crime No.179/2023) before the Commercial Street Police Station is directed against the impugned order dated 20.12.2022, directing the matter to be referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and with the direction to police authorities to register the F.I.R.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:22170 CRL.P No. 1197 of 2024

¶26

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that, it is the specific contention of the petitioner that prior to the respondent/complainant filing the aforesaid PCR No.17549/2022, there were proceeding before the Labour Court in I.D.No.30/2019 which had come to an end on 06.09.2022, prior to the respondent/complainant filing the aforesaid complaint before the Magistrate.

¶27

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, the earlier proceeding between the petitioner/accused and have been suppressed by the respondent/complainant and as such the impugned order 20.12.2022 passed by the learned Magistrate, directing investigation under 156(3) of Cr.P.C., directing the police authorities to register the F.I.R. and the consequent F.I.R. registered by Crime No.179/2023 deserve to be quashed.

¶28

respondent/complainant submits that, though that due to oversight and inadvertence, the respondent/complainant did not disclose the number of the earlier proceedings but necessary details in this regard are forthcoming in the

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:22170 CRL.P No. 1197 of 2024

¶31

complaint and as such there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

A perusal of the material on record including the aforesaid complaint submitted by the petitioner before the Magistrate would indicate that, documents in relation to the earlier Labour Court proceedings had not been produced by the respondent/complainant. It is therefore clear that, at the time of passing the impugned order directing the investigation under 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate did not have knowledge or the benefit of the earlier proceedings between the petitioner/accused and the respondent/complainant. Under these circumstances without expressing any opinion on the merits/de-merits of the rival contentions, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2022 passed in PCR No.17549/2022 and the consequent registration of the F.I.R. in Crime No.179/2023 and remit the matter back to the learned Magistrate for re-consideration a fresh in accordance with law, after considering the earlier proceedings

¶33

between the petitioner/accused and the

¶34

respondent/complainant.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:22170 CRL.P No. 1197 of 2024

¶36

In the result, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) Petition is hereby allowed ;

¶39

ii) Impugned order 20.12.2022 passed in PCR No.17549/2022 is hereby set aside;

¶40

iii) Consequently, the F.I.R in Crime No.179/2023 registered by the Jurisdictional Police Authorities is also hereby set aside;

¶41

iv) Matter is stands remitted back to the 29th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayo hall, Bengaluru for reconsideration of PCR No.17549/2022 afresh in accordance with law;

¶42

v) The learned Magistrate is directed to consider earlier proceedings in ID.30/2019 and proceed further and pass appropriate order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶43

KVR: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

Star Health and Allied v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Star Health and Allied v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Vs Sri. Amargundappa a. Meti

Mr. Sathish S.K. Vs Uco Bank

Bylappa M B Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Kokila Vs Canara Bank

Shri Umesh Kondajji Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Sarathi Traders Vs M/S State Bank of India