Allowed

Smt. Naina Lal Kidwai v. M/S Lisa Apparels Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2024CRL.P/331/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Directors and officers of a company sought quashing of proceedings in a private complaint under Sections 420, 506B and 120-B IPC. The High Court quashed the cognizance/process orders, noting they lacked application of mind, and remitted the matter to the Magistrate for fresh consideration including Section 202 Cr.P.C. compliance.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 17.09.2016 issuing process against petitioners and order dated 20.10.2023 quashed; Magistrate directed to reconsider afresh against all accused.

Smt. Naina Lal Kidwai Vs M/S Lisa Apparels Pvt. Ltd. — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:5394 CRL.P No. 331 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.331/2024(482)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NAINA LAL KIDWAI, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 5^TH FLOOR, 52/60, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, MUMBAI – 400 001.

¶9

SRI VIKAS JAIN, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 52/60, MAHATMA GANDI ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 001.

¶10

SRI ANIL NAIR, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 84, GANDI BAZAR ROAD, 2^ND FLOOR, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶11

SRI SUMIT KHANA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 84, GANDHI BAZAR ROAD, 2^ND FLOOR, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004.

¶12

Digitally signed by BS RAVIKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI SACHIN NAGARM, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, WORLI OFFICE, S. K. A HIRE MARG WORLI - MUMBAI – 400 030.

¶14

SRI RAMUKAMMA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, 84, GANDHI BAZAR ROAD, 2^ND FLOOR, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU – 560 004. - PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ACHAL ANAND V. J., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

M/S. LISA APPARELS PVT. LTD., NO. 191, 3^RD CROSS, PANDURANGA NAGAR, OFF: BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 076 - RESPONDENT (BY SRI ASHOK B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5394 CRL.P No. 331 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN C.C. NO 2 2480/2016 PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY, TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.09.2016 PASSED IN THE CASE DIRECTING REGISTRATION OF CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE PENAL UNDER SECTIONS 420, 506B AND 120-B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND ORDERING PROCESS AGAINST THEM FOR THEIR APPEARANCE IN THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT AND TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS THAT ARE BEING RECORDED IN THE CASE & ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The accused nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10 in C.C. No. 22480/2016 on the file of the learned V Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru City (for short ‘the trial court’), have filed this petition challenging the proceedings initiated by the trial court against them.

¶23

The petitioners contend that the respondent had filed a private complaint in PCR No. 21981/2009 alleging offences punishable under Section 420, 506 (Part-II) and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They contend that the trial court took cognizance and issued process to the accused. The accused No.1 and accused no. 9 filed Criminal Petition No. 8119/2016 challenging the order taking cognizance and the order issuing process to them. It is stated that this

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:5394 CRL.P No. 331 of 2024

¶25

Court in terms of an order dated 20.07.2023 allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused no.9 and also quashed the order taking cognizance and issuing process against accused no.1 and remanded the case back to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration of the material on record.

¶26

It is contended that the petitioners are also similarly placed as the accused no. 9 and that the petitioners were arrayed as accused in the case only in view of their position held by them in the accused no.1. It is further contended that in Crl. P. No. 8119/2016 while quashing the order taking cognizance against accused no.1, it was specifically held that there was no application of mind insofar as the accused no.1 and others (which included the petitioners) are concerned and therefore remanded the case to the Magistrate for proper consideration.

¶27

It is contended that notwithstanding the direction as aforesaid, the Magistrate is now proceeding against the petitioners who were not parties in Crl. P. No. 8119/2016. The

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:5394 CRL.P No. 331 of 2024

¶30

petitioners are therefore before this Court for quashing of proceedings initiated against them.

¶31

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners reiterated the aforesaid contentions and stated that though cognizance of the offences can be taken only once, this Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. had quashed the order taking cognizance against all the accused. Hence, he contended that the trial court has to proceed from the stage of taking cognizance after due application of mind.

¶32

The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there are specific allegations against each of the accused and the Magistrate had taken note of these allegations and had taken cognizance and issued process against them. He submits that these accused did not challenge the order taking cognizance against them. Therefore, they cannot do so now belatedly.

¶33

I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶34

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5394 CRL.P No. 331 of 2024

¶35

As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, this Court had quashed the order taking cognizance against the accused no. 1 and accused no. 9 in Crl. P. No. 8119/2016. This court also noticed that the order taking cognizance against accused no.1 and accused no. 9 was without proper application of mind and therefore remitted the case back to the Magistrate for proper consideration of the material on record. Since the order taking cognizance against the other accused was also without due application of mind, this Court held that the case deserved to be remitted for proper consideration of the material on record. It was inevitable for this court to set aside the order taking cognizance against all the accused as not doing so, would have resulted in an anomalous situation. Where there is an order quashing the order taking cognizance against accused no.1 while the proceedings are continued against the employees/ directors of the accused no.1.

¶36

Thus, in the peculiar facts of the case, it is appropriate to direct the Magistrate to apply his mind afresh to the facts of the case and pass appropriate orders against not only the accused no.1 but also against all the other accused. Consequently, this

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:5394 CRL.P No. 331 of 2024

¶38

petition is allowed. The order dated 17.09.2016 passed by the V Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru City, issuing process against these petitioners is quashed. Consequently, the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by the Trial Court is also quashed.

¶39

This Court has noticed in Crl. P. No. 8119/2016 that the Trial Court has conducted the proceedings in a grotesque manner. It is hoped that the Trial Court shall conduct the proceedings earnestly and in accordance with law. It is also needless to mention that the Trial Court shall look into the requirement to comply with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. in so far as some of the accused who are not residing within its jurisdiction.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

BVV List No.: 19 Sl No.: 3 CT-ASC

Smt. Naina Lal Kidwai v. M/S Lisa Apparels Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Naina Lal Kidwai v. M/S Lisa Apparels Pvt. Ltd.

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

Mrs G Chitra Poornima Vs State by

Sri K P Rupesh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Jumma Masjid Malalipete Vs Sri Dhananjay

Sri. Kadekan Prakash Kamath Vs Sri. Vitobha Rukma Bai Devara Bhandaram

Smt.Shoba B Vs State of Karnataka by Doddapet P.S.

Smt Roopa a T Vs State of Karnataka