L. Kumara Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. SOCRATES S, DEPUTY MANAGER, S/O R SELVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, ADDRESS:CAPITAL FIRST LTD, ANARGHYA, NO.1, 5^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-95.

¶14

(BY SRI.THEJESH P.,HCGP FOR R1, R2-VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 29/08/2023, NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER BY THE LEARNED X A.C.M.M, AT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.51915/2015 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT K.R.PURAM P.S., IN CR.NO.510/2014.

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:3760 CRL.P No. 4928 of 2023

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶23

a) Quash the entire proceedings initiated against the present petitioner by the learned X Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mayohall, Bangalore City in C.C.No.51915/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 120(B) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code registered by the respondent K.R.Puram Police station in Crime No.0510/2014.

¶24

b) And grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶26

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶27

Respondent No.2 having been served with notice in

¶28

this petition has not chosen to appear and has not contested the petition.

¶29

A perusal of the material on record would indicate that

¶30

the respondent No.2 filed complaint dated 08.09.2014 against accused Nos.3 to 10, alleging various allegations against them for

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3760 CRL.P No. 4928 of 2023

¶32

the offences punishable under Section 420, 120(B) r/w Section 34 of IPC. In the said complaint, in addition to making specific allegations against accused Nos.3 to 10, respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner along with one Imran Khan - accused No.2 cheated and defrauded respondent No.2/complainant, resulting in the registration of impugned FIR in Crime No.0510/2014, for the alleged offences under Section 420, 120(B) r/w Section 34 IPC.

¶33

In this context, it is relevant to state that before respondent No.2 lodged the instant complaint, the petitioner, who is a legally practicing advocate had already issued a legal notice against respondent No.2 on 16.06.2014. So also a perusal of the complaint and FIR would indicate that no specific allegations have been made as against the petitioner, who is merely a practicing advocate and the entire allegations are directed only as against accused Nos.3 to 10.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner being merely a practicing advocate, who had issued legal notice dated 16.06.2014 to the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint dated 08.09.2014, I am

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:3760 CRL.P No. 4928 of 2023

¶37

of the considered opinion that the continuation of the impugned proceedings qua insofar as the petitioner would amount to abuse of

¶38

process of law, which deserves to be quashed.

¶39

7. Accordingly, I pass following:

¶40

O R D E R

¶41

(i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶42

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.51915/2015 pending on the file of X Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in Crime No.0510/2014, for the offences under Sec.420, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC stand quashed

¶43

qua insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶46

RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

L. Kumara v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L. Kumara 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

M.Gopal Vs State of Karnataka

R Rupesh Kumar Vs M/S Golden Gate Properties Ltd.

S H Rajendra Vs M.S Prashanth

Sri. Vengal Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Rathnamma Vs State of Karnataka

Anubergine Properties Private Limited Vs M/S Ana Arc Private Limited