Sri Jagadeesh N vs State By Devanahalli Police ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2074 Kant

                                      Crl.P.No.3362/2017

                           1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2021

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.3362/2017

BETWEEN:

SRI JAGADEESH N
S/O. M.NARAYANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT FA 253, NEARBY
BENGALURU ONE OFFICE
OLD TOWNSHIP HAL
VIMANAPURA, BENGALURU- 560 017

PERMANENT ADDRESS
NO.22, SAGAR ROAD
GONIKOPPA
SHIMOGA-577 204                            ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI T.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION
       REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BENGALURU- 560 001

2.     SRI G.PUTTARAJU
       S/O. S.GOPALA KRISHNAPPA
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
       PARTNER M/S.NEELADHRI VENTURES
       KORAMARA BEEDHI, TALUKA OFFICE ROAD
       DEVANAHALLI TOWN
       BENGALURU                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI PRASHANTH P.N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                                 Crl.P.No.3362/2017

                                2


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO.6/2017 OF DEVANAHALLI POLICE
STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 406, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondent

No.2 submit that the parties have settled the matter and

respondent No.2 has no objection to quash the impugned

proceedings.

2. Learned HCGP submits memo along with the

report of the Investigating Officer and the statement of

respondent No.2.

3. Heard both side.

4. "Whether the proceedings in Crime No.6/2017

of Devanahalli police station against the petitioner

amounts to abuse of the process of the Court?" is the

question involved in this case.

5. The petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime

No.6/2017 of Devanahalli police station. The said case was Crl.P.No.3362/2017

registered against the petitioner and two others for the

offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 read

with Section 34 of IPC on the basis of the complaint filed

by respondent No.2.

6. The gist of the said complaint is as follows:

That accused Nos.1 and 3 were the owners of the

land bearing Survey No.5 of Thindlu village of Devanahalli

Taluk measuring 3 acres 10 guntas. They entered into an

agreement of sale dated 28.06.2012 with the complainant.

On receiving advance consideration, they put him in

possession of the property. Such being the position,

accused Nos.1 and 3 in collusion with accused No.2

suppressing the agreement of sale in favour of the

complainant, sold the property to accused No.2 under the

registered sale deed dated 07.05.2014. When the

complainant questioned that, accused entered into a

settlement with him. Accused No.2 agreed to pay

Rs.2,77,00,000/- to the complainant. Towards payment of

the said amount, he issued three cheques drawn on

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Shivamogga. When

presented, they were dishonoured for want of sufficient Crl.P.No.3362/2017

funds, thereby the accused have committed criminal

breach of trust and cheated him.

7. Both Counsel submit that pending this petition,

the parties have settled the matter. Learned Counsel for

the petitioner submits that the petitioner has executed

re-conveyance deed in favour of accused Nos.1 and 3.

8. The report of the Investigating Officer was

called for in the matter. He has submitted the report along

with the statement of the complainant-respondent No.2. In

the said statement, respondent No.2 admitted that he has

settled the matter with other accused and he has no

objection for quashing the proceedings.

9. The above facts and circumstances of the case

show that the dispute between the parties is

predominantly civil dispute and they are given the colour

of criminal case. Since the parties have settled the matter,

continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner does

not serve any purpose and the chances of conviction of the

petitioner are very remote.

Crl.P.No.3362/2017

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs.

State of Punjab1 held that where certain offences which

overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour

having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial,

financial, partnership or such like transactions if the

parties settle them, the High Court by invoking inherent

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can quash the

proceedings.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances,

nature of the offences, settlement entered into between

the parties and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Gian Singh's case referred to supra it is fit case to

quash the proceedings. Therefore the petition is allowed.

The first information report in Crime No.6/2017 of

Devanahalli police station and the consequent proceedings

are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KSR

(2012)10 SCC 303