Allowed

Suresh @ Suresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Sept 2024CRL.P/9784/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka accepted a settlement between private parties and issued oral judgment quashing an FIR registered for cheating and cyber fraud offences under Section 482 CrPC, noting the dispute was not against the State.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition disposed; Impugned FIR in Crime No.23/2024 stands quashed. Earthwork seizure amount to be released to complainant.

Suresh @ Suresh Kumar Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41220 CRL.P No. 9784 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9784 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SURESH @ SURESH KUMAR (AS SHOWN IN REMAND APPLICATION) S/O NARASHIMAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, NO.288, MARIGOWDA STREET, SIDDALINGAPURA, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-570 022

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIKYATH B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by KAVYA G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CCB BANGALORE, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

DR. JAYASHREE M EMMI W/O RAJENDRA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O NO. 31, SECTOR 58, E ROAD, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587 102

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SURENDRA Y.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:41220 CRL.P No. 9784 of 2024

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE CCB BANGALORE IN CR. NO. 23/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ACMM FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 419, 420 IPC R/W 66(C) OF IT ACT, 2008.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of FIR in Crime No.23/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with 66 (C) of IT Act, 2008.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Vikyath B., appearing for the petitioner, Sri. P. Thejesh learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri. Surendra Y.S. appearing for respondent No.2.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that during the pendency of petition the parties to the lis have settled the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:41220 CRL.P No. 9784 of 2024

¶29

dispute amongst themselves and have filed application under Section 320 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing along with the affidavit.

¶30

The application reads as follows:

¶31

"1. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner CCB P.S. in Crime No. 22/2024 after investigation 1st respondent filed FIR for the offences punishable under section 419, 420 IPC R/W 66 (C) of IT Act 2008.

¶32

The petitioner and 2nd respondent further submits, due to intervention of well-wishers the above matter was compromised between the parties amicably, hence the 2nd

¶33

respondent is not willing to prosecute the above case. 3. The petitioner and 2nd respondent further submits that the

¶34

above matter is settled between the parties without coercion or undue influence.

¶35

The petitioner and 2nd respondent further submits that all the offences are compoundable offences, if this application is allowed no hardship will be caused to the 1st respondent

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:41220 CRL.P No. 9784 of 2024

¶38

police, if not allowed more hardship will be caused to the petitioner.

¶39

WHEREFORE, the petitioner and 2nd respondent above named humbly prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to permit them to compound the offence under section 419, 420 IPC R/w 66 (C) of IT Act 2008, in Crime No. 22/2024 Pending on the file of I ACMM at Bangalore, and quash the proceedingsby allowing this application in the interest of justice."

¶40

In the light of the above, I deem it appropriate

¶41

to accept the application and quash the FIR, as the dispute is between private parties and the allegations are not against the State.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the parties would submit that an amount of Rs.7.00 laksh is seized and is in

¶43

the custody of Investigating Officer. If that be so, the Investigating Officer or the Court before which it is now

¶44

kept in custody, shall release the amount in favour of the

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:41220 CRL.P No. 9784 of 2024

¶47

complainant in accordance with law, without brooking any delay.

¶48

For the aforesaid reasons the following:

¶49

ORDER

¶50

a) The criminal petition is disposed.

¶51

b) The impugned FIR in Crime No.23/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with 66 (C) of IT Act, 2008 stands quashed.

¶52

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶53

BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 168

Suresh @ Suresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh @ Suresh Kumar 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

Kapil Goutham Halwale Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C Mallikarjuna Gupta Vs the Director of Enforcement

Sri. Sandeep Ayyappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shubankari P Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Harish v Vs State by Karnataka

Dinesh Vs State of Karnataka by