Chennakeshava Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

AJIT COATING P. LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANEIS ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, NO.3/3A, KIADB INDUSTIRAL AREA, HIREHALLI, NH-4, TUMKUR - 572 104.

¶24

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DRIECTOR, SRI. B. P. SHANMUKHA.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S.B.TOTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.144/2021 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.227/2020 REGISTERED BY THE KYATHASANDRA POLICE STATION, TUMKURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 201, 408, 420 AND R/W 34 IPC PENDING BEFORF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, TUMKUR.

¶28

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

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:1715 CRL.P No. 10832 of 2024

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶34

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and

¶35

2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.144/2021 arising out of Crime No.227/2020 registered by Kyathasandra Police station Tumkuru, and charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408, 201, 420, 114 read with 34 of IPC, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Tumkur.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for state and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶37

3.The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the case was registered against petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioner/accused No.1 said to be Manager, working under respondent No.2 private company. During the service, the petitioner No.1 said to be misappropriated huge amount from the company and

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:1715 CRL.P No. 10832 of 2024

¶40

transferred to the name of petitioner No.2 his wife and others, amounting to ₹45,26,807/-. Subsequently, the respondent No.2 also filed a suit for the recovery of the said amount from

¶41

the petitioner No.1 It is alleged by the learned counsel that during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.319/2021 where there was compromise entered between both the parties and the petitioner undertook to return some of the properties while executing the deed in favour of the complainant. Accordingly, as per the schedule shown in the compromise decree, the petitioner already executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2 and also transferred the motorbike as well as tractor and trailer in the name of the respondent No.2. Thereby he has complied the performance of his contract in the agreement compromise decree before the Trial Court. Therefore, as per the compromise, this petition shroud be allowed and criminal proceedings should be quashed. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition.

¶42

Per contra, learned counsel for respondents objected the petition contending that still one more property is not included and it has to be recovered from the petitioner which is a Kinetic Honda, item No.4 mentioned in the schedule 'B' of the

¶43

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:1715 CRL.P No. 10832 of 2024

¶45

property. Therefore, it cannot be quashed. However, it is fairly admitted that the case against accused no.3 has been quashed by this court by way of compromise.

¶46

Learned HCGP also objected the petition.

¶47

Having heard the arguments and perused the records,

¶48

on perusal of the same, the petitioner No.1, said to be Manager under the respondent No.2. During his tenure he has misappropriate ₹45,26,807/-. and has transferred the amount to various persons including his wife. After registering the FIR, the police took up the investigation and also filed the charge sheet which is under challenge. It is also brought to the ntice of this court, the respondent No.2 also filed civil suit against the petitioner for recovery of the money. In the original suit the petitioner No.1 appeared and got compromised the case before the Lokadalath in O.S.No.319/2021, wherein as per the Lokadalath settlement, the petitioner undertook to execute the sale deed in item No.1 of the property measuring 40x30 feet a sit and another property situated in Nelamangala in Sy.No.124/2b about 2.14 guntas of land and the same has been transferred in the name of the respondent No.2 which was

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:1715 CRL.P No. 10832 of 2024

¶51

not in dispute. As per the other paras, the petitioner also undertook to transfer the Royal Enfield bullet bearing KA-06 HP-2075 and item No.5 of 'B schedule property' a tractor and trailer KA-06 TC-6060 and KA-06 TC-6061 and as per the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, both the vehicles were already transferred to respondent No.2 and the same is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Only it is stated that in item No.4 of 'B schedule property' not yet transferred and the petitioner counsel brought to the notice that it is not included in the decree or compromise decree before the Lokadalath. Item No.4 is Honda Activa 5G motorcycle bearing KA 06 HD 3393 and the same was not included in the compromise decree which is also item No.4 of 'B schedule property' which is not included in the compromise. Such being the case, question of contending the property, as not fully transferred by the petitioner is not correct. The petitioner already complied the decree and satisfied the decree as per the compromise. Such being the case, as per the compromise held, this case should be withdrawn by the respondent No.2, but the respondent is not present, only counsel is present. Therefore, in view of the

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:1715 CRL.P No. 10832 of 2024

¶54

entering compromise between both parties and due to withdrawal of the complaint by the respondent No.2. Therefore, since the matter against the co-accused person is already quashed by this court, continuing proceedings against these petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.

¶55

Accordingly, this petitioner is allowed .

¶56

The criminal proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 C.C.No.144/2021 arising out of Crime No.227/2020 registered by Kyathasandra Police station Tumkuru, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Tumkur, is hereby quashed

¶57

Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶58

AKV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8 CT:SK

Chennakeshava Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

Chennakeshava Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi N Vs H a Garigeppa

Sri.Prakash @ Neni Vs State of Karnataka

Ms Bollamma B M Vs Ms Padma R

Uday Kumar a Vs the State of Karnataka by

Syed Noor Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Ramegowda Vs Sri Channegowda