Disposed

Sri Veeresh Ittina v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2024WP/9120/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 406, 420, 120B/34 IPC. Parties settled the dispute during pendency and filed an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 CrPC with the complainant's affidavit supporting quashment.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.3835/2019 before I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural quashed as against petitioners (Accused Nos. 2 and 3).

Sri Veeresh Ittina Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:41282 WP No. 9120 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 9120 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VEERESH ITTINA, S/O AMARAPPA ITTINA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO. T-301, ITTNA SHIVAS APARTMENT, SARJAPUR ROAD, AGARA NEXT SOBHA ONYX APARTMENT, BANGALROE SOUTH, BANGALORE HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 102.

¶9

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

MS. MONA ITTINA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O KIRAN SHANKAR THEJASWI HASAN VISHWANATH, RESIDENT OF ITTINA HOUSE, SARJAPUR ROAD, KAIKONDAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 035.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. AJAY KADKOL T, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 067

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:41282 WP No. 9120 of 2024

¶17

REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

MANASH CHAKRABORTY, S/O B.C. CHAKRABORTY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. BL-507, LEVEL-5, (FOURTH FLOOR), BLOCK-B, ITTINA ANU APARTMENT COMPLEX, HOPE FARM JUNCTION, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA - 560 066

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. N. VEDAVATHI N, ADVOCATE FO R2)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) PASS AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/11/2010 PASSED BY THE 1 ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE RURAL IN CC NO. 5079/2010 BY WHICH ORDER THE TRIAL MAGISTRATE HAS ALLEGEDLY TAKEN COGNIZANCE AND ORDERED THE ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN WHO ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO. 2 AND 3 IN THE CASE, FOR THE ALLEGED COMMISSION OF OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE PENAL UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, 120B READ WITH 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶22

¶23

NC: 2024:KHC:41282 WP No. 9120 of 2024

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are before this Court seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.3835/2019 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel Sri. Ajaj Kadkol T., appearing for the petitioners, Sri. P. Thejesh learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Smt. N. Vedavathi appearing for respondent No.2.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that during the pendency of petition the parties to the lis have settled the dispute amongst themselves and have filed application

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:41282 WP No. 9120 of 2024

¶32

under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 along with the affidavit of the second respondent.

¶33

The affidavit in support of the application reads as follows:

¶34

"AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 320 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

¶35

We, Veeresh Ittina, S/o Amarappa Ittina, Aged about 56 years, Resident of #T-301, Ittina Shivas Apartment, Sarjapur Road, Agara, Next Sobha Onyx Apartment, Bangalore South, Bangalore HSR Layout, Bangalore 560 102,- the First Petitioner above named; and Manash Chakraborty, S/o B. C. Chakraborty, Aged about 44 years, Resident of Flat No. BL-507, Level-5, (Fourth Floor), Block-B, Ittina Anu Apartment Complex, Hope Farm Junction, Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru City, Karnataka 560 066, the Second Respondent herein do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

¶36

L. Veeresh Ittina am the First Petitioner in the above case and I am swearing to this Affidavit for myself and on behalf of the other Petitioner in the case as there is no conflict of interest between ourselves in relation to the facts set out and the reliefs prayed for in the accompanying Interlocutory Application.

¶37

1. Manash Chakraborty, am conversant with the facts of the case and as such I am swearing this affidavit out of my own free will and volition.

¶38

The subject matter of the case in CC No. 3835/2019 pending on the file of the 1 Addl. Chief

¶39

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:41282 WP No. 9120 of 2024

¶40

Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural pertains to a civil dispute which was pending inter-se between Mr. Manash Chakraborty and the entity to which the Petitioners herein were attached to in their capacity as the directors.

¶41

The dispute between the Second Respondent and the entity to which the Petitioners herein were attached to has been resolved amicably and as such all the other proceedings which were pending inter-se between the parties have been laid a quietus to.

¶42

In fact, in the original case in CC No. 5079/2010, before the split up, the jurisdictional magistrate has even passed a judgement of acquittal of the Accused No. 4- Mr. Manu Ittina vide judgment dated 22.12.2018.

¶43

The Second Respondent does not wish to contest this matter any further in view of the amicable settlement having arrived at between the parties.

¶44

As such, the continuation of the proceedings before the Trial Court as agains the Petitioners herein would tantamount to serious abuse of process of law.

¶45

In view of the amicable resolution of the dispute which has been arrived to between the Second Respondent and the entity to which the Petitioners herein were attached to, the proceedings in CC No. 3835/2019 pending on the file of the 1 Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural begs for being quashed as against the Petitioners herein, at the hands of this Honble Court.

¶46

We, therefore, request this Hon'ble Court to order the quashment of the proceedings in CC No. 3835/2019 pending on the file of the I Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural, as against the Petitioners herein, in which case they are arraigned

¶47

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:41282 WP No. 9120 of 2024

¶48

as the Accused Nos. 2 and 3, in the ends of justice."

¶49

In the light of the afore-quoted affidavit filed by

¶50

respondent No.2, I deem it appropriate to accept the application and the affidavit and terminate the impugned proceedings, as the dispute is between the private parties and the offences alleged, are neither heinous nor against the State.

¶51

For the aforesaid reasons the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

a) The criminal petition is disposed.

¶54

b) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3835/2019 pending on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 stands quashed.

¶55

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶56

BVK; List No.: 2 Sl No.: 94; CT: BHK

Sri Veeresh Ittina v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Veeresh Ittina 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

Sri S Sunil Kumar Vs Sri M Gopal

Sri Suresha Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Avinash M S

Sri. Palani Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Cauvery Neeravari Nigama Ltd., Vs Sri K J Panduranga

Kapil Goutham Halwale Vs the State of Karnataka