Sri Vishwa Santhosha Bharathi Guruji v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2025CRL.P/6455/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Hemant Chandangoudar J., 15-04-2025), CRL.P No. 6455 of 2024: FIR Crime No.313/2024 (Kengeri P.S.) for Ss.420 & 506 IPC quashed under S.482 Cr.P.C. despite offences being cognizable and non-compoundable, on amicable settlement — complainant received Rs.18,00,000/- via four post-dated cheques and filed compounding affidavit; post-settlement investigation held to be abuse of process; liberty reserved to revive petition if cheques dishonoured.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR in Crime No.313/2024 registered by Kengeri Police Station, with liberty reserved to the complainant to revive the petition if the settlement cheques are dishonoured. ¶¶31

Sri Vishwa Santhosha Bharathi Guruji Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the FIR in Crime No.313/2024 registered by Kengeri Police Station, with liberty reserved to the complainant to revive the petition if the settlement cheques are dishonoured.

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.0313/2024 registered at Kengeri Police Station for offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC should be quashed, in view of the amicable settlement between the petitioner and the complainant notwithstanding that the offences are cognizable and non-compoundable.

¶¶23

Court's answer

Although the offences alleged are cognizable and non-compoundable, since the parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, it would be futile to subject the petitioner to investigation, the probability of the police filing the charge sheet being remote and bleak in view of the settlement; therefore, the continuation of the investigation would be an abuse of the process of the law.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the impugned FIR in Crime No.313/2024 registered by the Kengeri Police Station is quashed.

¶¶32

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the complainant to revive the petition in the event the post-dated settlement cheques are dishonoured for want of money.obiter¶¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 6455 of 2024 (S.482 Cr.P.C.) — Quashing of FIR on amicable settlement. The FIR in Crime No.313/2024 of Kengeri Police Station, pending before the XLVI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, was registered for offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, alleging that the petitioner, fully knowing that a portion of the land was classified as Kharab land, executed a lease deed thereby facilitating parting with Rs.15,00,000/-. During the pendency of the petition, the complainant (respondent No.2) filed an affidavit recording an amicable resolution of the dispute, under which he received Rs.18,00,000/- towards full and final settlement through four post-dated cheques undertaken to be encashed, and an application for compounding with his affidavit was placed on record. Holding that although the offences alleged are cognizable and non-compoundable, subjecting the petitioner to investigation after the settlement would be futile — the probability of the police filing the charge sheet being remote and bleak — and that continuation of the investigation would be an abuse of the process of the law, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR, reserving liberty to the complainant to revive the petition if the cheques are dishonoured for want of money. (¶¶23–33)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:15693 CRL.P No. 6455 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6455 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) /

¶7

528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI VISHWA SANTHOSHA BHARATHI GURUJI S/O SRI SOMESWARA KRISHNAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, CORONETED AS SRI SRI SRI VIDHYAVACHASPATHI VISWA SANTOSH BHARATHI SRIPADARU PEETADHIPATHI OF SRI SRI SRI BARAKOORU MAHA SAMSTHANAM MAHAPOSHAK SWAMIJI AND HEAD OF SRI SWAMY AYYAPPA TEMPLE SRIKSHETRA TRIKOOTACHALA AND HEAD OF AYUR ASHRAM 2^ND CROSS, 17^TH MAIN ROAD BHARATH NAGAR II STAGE, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BYADARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 091.

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE) Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA KENGERI P S REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

MADHUKUMAR S/O LATE SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.301, 3^RD FLOOR,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:15693 CRL.P No. 6455 of 2024

¶16

3^RD BLOCK, KAILAS BDA APARTMENT MYLASANDRA KENGERI BENGALURU-560 060.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S. MAHESH, ,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0313/2024 OF KENGERI POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420 AND 506 OF IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner challenges the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 506 and 420 of IPC.

¶24

The 2^nd respondent lodged the first information report (FIR) stating that the petitioner fully knowing that the portion of the land which is classified as Kharab land, has executed a lease deed there by facilitated to part with a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-.

¶25

The complainant filed an affidavit stating that he has amicably resolved the dispute with the petitioner and in terms of the settlement, he has received a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of his claim, and has agreed to withdraw all the allegations made in the impugned FIR. The amount of Rs.18,00,000/- is received by

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:15693 CRL.P No. 6455 of 2024

¶28

the complainant through 4 post dated cheques and under takes that the said cheques when presented will be encashed.

¶29

The application for compounding along with an affidavit of respondent No.2 is placed on record.

¶30

Although the offences alleged are cognizable and non-compoundable, however, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves, it would be futile, to subject the petitioner for investigation, since the probability of police filing the charge sheet is remote and bleak in view of the settlement. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation would be an abuse of the process of the law.

¶31