M.Gopal Vs State of Karnataka

SRI PREM KUMAR GAJARA S/O LATE HARIRAM GAJARA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, DIRECTOR OF PARKWAY DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD., NO.209, 2^ND FLOOR, RICHMOND TOWER, RICHMOND ROAD. BENGALURU-560025

¶14

PRESENT ADDRESS NO.12, SAYTEN DATTA ROAD, 4^TH FLOOR, FLAT NO.19, KOLKATTA, WEST BENGAL-700029

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1 SRI CHANDAN SANJAY BHAT, ADV. FOR R2)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:3661 CRL.P No. 11811 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.491/2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 467 AND 468 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE KADUGODI POLICE, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ACJM) BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:-

¶22

a) Call for relevant records and

¶23

b) Allow this Criminal petition by quashing the criminal proceedings in Crime No.491/2023 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under section 406, 420, 467 and 468 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, registered by the Kadugodi Police, which is pending before the Hon'ble Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Bengaluru Rural District, at Bengaluru, or,

¶24

c) Pass such any other order / orders in the interest of justice."

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - de facto complainant and perused the material on record.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:3661 CRL.P No. 11811 of 2023

¶28

The material on record discloses that the respondent - de facto complainant instituted the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.27664/2011 for alleged offences punishable under Section of 138 of N.I.Act. In the said proceedings, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, before whom a joint memo was filed by the petitioner and 2^nd respondent on 04.12.2012, whereby the petitioner undertook to pay a sum of Rs.7,79,90,364/- to the 2^nd respondent, failing which, the petitioner would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years. Since the petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of the Joint memo, the 2^nd respondent preferred W.P.No.1314/2018, in which this Court directed the 2^nd respondent to institute execution proceedings against the petitioner, pursuant to which, the 2^nd respondent has instituted Ex.No.25199/2018 which is pending before the Executing court. Meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent filed a police complaint dated 04.12.2023 against the petitioner-accused No.1 as well as other accused persons, which was registered in FIR in Crime No.491/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 r/w Section 34 IPC. Aggrieved by the impugned proceedings, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:3661 CRL.P No. 11811 of 2023

¶31

A perusal of the material on record including the complaint and FIR will clearly indicate that if the allegations made in the same are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety together with other materials, the same would constitute commission of a cognizable offence warranting conducting of investigation by the 1^st respondent - police authorities. In this context, it is relevant to state that apart from the fact that it cannot be said that the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafide intentions or instituted with ulterior motives, it is the petitioner who is guilty of not making payment to the 2^nd respondent in terms of the joint memo filed before the Lok Adalat. In addition to the same, it also cannot be said that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature in the light of the allegations made in the complaint not only as against the petitioner - accused No.1 but also against other accused persons with reference to several transactions, documents etc.,

¶32

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising my jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 and 227 of the

¶33