Quashed

Sri. Varun v. Vs State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Jun 2024CRL.P/3788/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that a dispute between private parties settled via a civil compromise petition under CPC Order 23 Rule 3 with full compliance of terms, including closure of original proceedings, justifies quashing the criminal FIR registered under various IPC sections.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition disposed; proceedings in Impugned Crime No. 64/2022 quashed as regards accused Nos. 2 and 3.

Sri. Varun v Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21102 CRL.P No. 3788 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3788 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VARUN V., S/O LATE M.VASU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶9

PARTNER OF

¶10

M/S. SUMUKHA CONSTRCUTIONS AT NO 134, 7^TH MAIN JAYANAGAR 4^TH BLOCK EAST BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶11

SRI ARUN V., S/O LATE M.VASU AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶12

PARTNER OF

¶13

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

M/S. SUMUKHA CONSTRUCTIONS AT NO.134, 7^TH MAIN JAYANAGAR, 4^TH BLOCK EAST BENGALURU – 560 011.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI SUDHAKAR G.V., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:21102 CRL.P No. 3788 of 2022

¶21

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

SRI B.R.S. KUMAR S/O SRI RAJASHEKARAIH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.1105 SANJEEVINI, 10^TH MAIN RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHI, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI ANANDARAMA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.64/2022 DATED 09.04.2022 FILED BY SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE AS P/U/S.447, 323, 406, 420, 427, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 7tH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.64/2022, pending before the 7^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 447, 323, 406, 420, 427, 506 r/w. 34 of the IPC.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:21102 CRL.P No. 3788 of 2022

¶31

Heard Sri Sudhakar G.V., learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Harish Ganapathi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Anandarama, learned counsel for respondent No.2. The matter is moved today, for reporting settlement.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the parties to the lis have settled the dispute among themselves before the civil Court in O.S.No.1874/2022. They have also filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶33

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant submits that all the terms and conditions stipulated in the settlement are fulfilled and one of the terms of settlement is the closure of the present proceedings.

¶34

The compromise petition reads as under:

¶35

“xxxxxxxx

¶36

4. The Plaintiff has agreed to receive the amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Only) from the Defendant No.2 towards his full and final settlement of his claim in the Schedule Property and under the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 24/04/2017, MOU dated 04/07/2017, Agreement of Sale dated 23/06/2020, Possession of Acknowledgement dated 29/06/2020 and Assignment

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:21102 CRL.P No. 3788 of 2022

¶39

deed dated 09/09/2021. The Defendant No.2 has paid, the amount of Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores Only) to the Plaintiff in following manner and the plaintiff hereby acknowledge the receipt of the same:

¶40

a. Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) by way of RTGS having transaction reference number KKBKH24062743743 dated 02/03/2024 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jayanagar 4^th Block Branch, Bangalore credited to destination account.

¶41

b. Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores only) by way of RTGS having transaction reference number KKBKH24065873390 dated 05/03/2024 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jayanagar 4^th Block Branch, Bangalore credited to destination account.

¶42

c. Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) by way of RTGS having transaction reference number KKBKH24072748099 dated 12/03/2024 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Jayanagar 4^th Block, Bangalore.

¶43

5. The Plaintiff has given up all his claims under the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 24/04/2017, MOU dated 04/07/2017, Agreement of Sale dated 23/06/2020. Possession of Acknowledgement dated 29/06/2020 and assignment deed dated 09/09/2021 in respect of the suit Schedule properties for the Schedule Property described hereunder. The plaintiff further confirms that the defendant No.2 is in possession of the Schedule Property.

¶44

6. The Plaintiff shall not have any claim over the Schedule Property described hereunder or Suit Schedule B Property either under the alleged under Agreement of Sale dated 24/04/2017, MOU dated 04/07/2017, Agreement of Sale dated 23/06/2020, Possession of Acknowledgement dated 29/06/2020 and Assignment deed dated 09/09/2021 in any manner and the Plaintiff and/or anyone acting through or claiming under him shall not have any claim or interest over the Schedule Property described hereunder herein or

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:21102 CRL.P No. 3788 of 2022

¶47

suit schedule properties and that he shall not interfere or obstruct for development of the Schedule Property described hereunder belonging to the Defendant No.2 directly or indirectly in any manner. The Defendant No.2 is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the Schedule Property herein and it is entitled to sell, develop and develop the Schedule Property.

¶48

7. That the Plaintiff declares that he has no further claims whatsoever against the Defendants or in respect of the Suit Schedule B Property or in the Schedule Property described hereunder.

¶49

8. The Plaintiff has no objection to return the Original Agreement of Sale dated 24/04/2017, MOU dated 04/07/2017, Agreement of Sale dated 23/06/2020, Possession of Acknowledgement dated 29/06/2020 and Assignment deed dated 09/09/2021 produced in the above suit to the Defendant No.2. The court fees paid on the plant may be refund to the plaintiff.

¶50

9. The Plaintiff has filed an complaint against the Defendant No.1 and Sri. Varun.V & Sri. Arjun.V who partners of the Defendant No.2 and FIR registered in Crime No.64/2022 before the Sampigehalli Police Station. The Sri. Varun.V & Sri.Arjun.V have filed the Crl.Pet. No.3788/2022 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to quash the FIR in Crime No.64/2022. The Plaintiff has undertaken to withdraw the said complaint in crime No.64/2022 and also he has no objection to allow the Crl: Pet No. 3788/2022 and quash the FIR in Crime No.64/2022.

¶51

10. The parties herein do hereby declare that the above compromise has been entered with their sound mind and on their own will, violation and there in no fraud, coercion, collusion or compulsion in entering into this compromise petition.”

¶52

In the light of the aforesaid submissions and the compromise

¶53

petition as afore-quoted, as the allegations are not against the State, I deem it appropriate to accept the compromise petition

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:21102 CRL.P No. 3788 of 2022

¶55

made before the concerned Court and terminate the impugned proceedings.

¶56

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶57

ORDER

¶58

a. The criminal petition is disposed.

¶59

b. The proceedings in impugned Crime No.64/2022, pending before the 7^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, qua the petitioners – accused

¶60

Nos.2 and 3, stand quashed.

¶61

Sd/JUDGE

¶62

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri. Varun v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Varun v. Vs 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

Almas Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. a N Chandra Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka

Rakesh Kr Dutta @ Rakesh Kumar Dutta Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Mohan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Hemantha P Vs State of Karnataka by

Mr Maxim Mendonsa Vs the State of Karnataka