Sri Manjunath M S Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE- 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI KIRAN KUMAR S R, S/O SHREERAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, EMPLOYED IN SOMERSET THERAPEUTICS LIMITED, BUDIHAL KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVIAH, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC TO 1) QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE (IN CR.NO.8/2023, NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION) P/U/S 384 AND 420 OF IPC, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN C.C.NO.9983/2023 AT ANNEXURE-D. 2) CONSEQUENTLY TO SET ASIDE THE COGNIZANCE IS TAKEN AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSON AND ISSUED THE SUMMONS TO ACCUSED PERSON BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:716 CRL.P No. 2573 of 2024

¶21

NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT IN C.C.NO.9983/2023 AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

In this petition, the petitioner/accused seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings in CC No.9983/2023 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 384 and 420 of IPC pending on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bangalore Rural District .

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶26

Respondent No.2- complainant having been served with the notice in this petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

¶27

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that petitioner was an earlier employee with M/s.Somerset Therapeutics Limited, a Private Limited Company and respondent No.2, complainant is the Authorized Signatory of the said Company. It is contended that the petitioner having been terminated from the employment of the aforesaid Company, the petitioner has raised

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:716 CRL.P No. 2573 of 2024

¶30

Industrial Dispute before the jurisdictional Labour Court in ID No.20/2022 which is pending adjudication. It is further contended that in the said Industrial Dispute, the aforesaid Company had entered appearance and has filed its statement of objections and are contesting the said proceedings. It is the grievance of the petitioner that as a counter blast to the aforesaid Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner pending in ID No.20/2022, respondent No.2, Authorized Signatory of the Company has filed the instant false and frivolous complaint in Crime No.8/2023 and as such, the continuation of the said criminal proceedings during the pendency of the aforesaid Industrial Dispute amounts to abuse of process of Court and the same deserves to be quashed.

¶31

As stated supra, respondent No.2 having been served with the notice of the petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

¶32

A perusal of the material on record, in particular, the averment made in the claim petition in ID No.20/2022 and the counter statement filed by the aforesaid Company/opposite party in ID No.20/2022 would indicate that the complaint has been filed by the Authorized Signatory of the Company as a counter blast to the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner making identical

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:716 CRL.P No. 2573 of 2024

¶35

allegations against the petitioner as alleged in the counter statement filed by the Company. It is also relevant to state that a perusal of the complaint would also not indicate that there does not exist any cognizable offence warranting continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, continuation of the present proceedings insofar as petitioner is concerned during the pendency of the Industrial Dispute proceedings would amount to abuse of process of Court warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶36

In the result, pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶39

(ii) Impugned proceedings in CC No.9983/2023 for the

¶40

alleged offences punishable under Sections 384 and 420 of IPC pending on the file of learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, Bangalore Rural District against the petitioner are hereby quashed .

¶41

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶42

tsn*

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sri Manjunath M S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunath M S v. the 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

Sri. Sachin Patil Vs the State by Basavanagudi Police Station

Aravinda S Vs State of Karnataka

Asif Tambuli Vs K S Nagaraj

Sri.Sharan Kumar N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrahasa S L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sandeepa Reddy D Vs State of Karnataka by