Karnataka High Court
Shri Manish Ravilal Patel vs State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12276 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI MANISH RAVILAL PATEL
S/O RAVILAL PATEL
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
DIRECTOR
C/O: M/S. GENERIC
ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
& PROJECTS LTD.,
#402, 4TH FLOOR
SALESH CENTER
NO.18, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE (URBAN) - 560 052.
2. SHRI JAYESH SHESHMAL RAWAL
S/O SHESHMAL RAWAL
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
C/O: M/S. GENERIC
ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
& PROJECTS LTD.,
#402, 4TH FLOOR
SALESH CENTER
NO.18, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE (URBAN) - 560 052.
3. SHRI TARAK BIPINCHANDRA GOR
S/O BIPINCHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
DIRECTOR
C/O: M/S. GENERIC
ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
& PROJECTS LTD.,
-2-
#402, 4TH FLOOR
SALESH CENTER
NO.18, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BANGALORE (URBAN) - 560 052.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NARAYANA BABU D.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION
648/L, OLD MADRAS ROAD
BINNAMANGALA
HOYSALA NAGAR
INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 038.
2. M/S. ZETWERK MANUFACTURING
BUSINESSES PRIVATE LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT,
2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERD
OFFICE AT: C/O BHIVE
WORKSPACES
#467/468
SITUATED ON SHRI KRISHNA
TEMPLE ROAD
INDIRANAGAR
1ST STAGE, BANGALURU - 560 038
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SHRI NIKESH AGARWAL
(BUSINESS FINANCE MANAGER).
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE FIR DATED 02.11.2022 IN
CR.NO.235/2022 REGISTERED BY INDIRANAGAR P.S.
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406,420,120B R/W
34 OF IPC AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH A.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU CITY AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,
-3-
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The criminal petition is filed by the petitioners seeking for quashing the FIR in Crime No.235/2022 for the offence under Section 406, 420, 120B read with 34 of IPC.
2. Both the parties and their respective counsel are present and Sri.Rahul Rai, learned HCGP present. Sri.Vinay.S undertakes to file vakalath on behalf of respondent No.2, the respondent No.2 is present physically.
3. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioners and petitioner No.1 / accused No.2 is present before the Court. The accused No.2 filed a separate affidavit on behalf of himself and other petitioners namely accused Nos.3 and 4, and submits that the parties have arrived at a conclusion to compromise the matter amicably. The respondent No.2 - Sri.Nikesh Agarwal (Business Finance -4- Manager) is present before this Court and endorsed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. Both the parties have submitted an application under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C., stating that they have amicably settled the matter out of Court and the terms and conditions are extracted in the application. The said averments which both the parties have relied on are mentioned in the separate affidavit filed by accused No.2, which starts from para No.3 and sub- para (a) to (f), which reads thus:
"a) With the intent to pay the outstanding due amount of Rs.37,53,09,037/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Crores Fifty Three Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand and Thirty Seven only) the Petitioner No.1 herein has entered into a Settlement Agreement dated 06.12.2022 ("Settlement Agreement") with the Respondent No.2 Company which contains the terms and conditions for settlement as willfully agreed between the parties to the Settlement Agreement. The payment schedule and final amount for settlement is as set out in the Annexure A of the Settlement Agreement. The copy of the Settlement Agreement dated 06.12.2022 is here with produced as Document No.1.-5-
b) We further state that, the Petitioner No.1 has provided a corporate guarantee dated 06.12.2022 through his company D Ravilal Resource Management Private Limited wherein the Petitioner No.1 is the director. The copy of the Corporate Guarantee dated 06.12.2022 is herewith produced as Document No.2.
The Petitioner No.1 has also given a AR HIABI hout Personal Guarantee dated 06.12.2022. The copy of the Personal Guarantee dated 06.12.2022 is herewith produced as Document No.3.
c) Further, Ms. Hemalatha Ravital Patel and Mr. Ravilal Patel have given a Personal Guarantees dated 06.12.2022. The copy of the Personal Guarantees dated 06.12.2022 is herewith produced as Document No.4 series.
d) The other documents, deeds, agreements and guarantees executed by the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 are as follows:
• Deed of Hypothecation dated 06.12.2022 The copy of the Deed of Hypothecation dated 06.12.2022 herewith produced as Document No.5.
e) I state that, in view of the above-mentioned documents, deeds, agreements and guarantees the parties are hereby reporting settlement as per the terms of the Settlement Agreement attached with this affidavit.
f) I state that, all issues between the parties hereby stand resolved in relation to the FIR Crime No.235/2022 registered on 02.11.2022 by the -6- Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.2 does not currently have any claims apart from what is stated in the Settlement Agreement.
5. Thus, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gyan Singh v. State of Punjab and another1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"Power of High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from power of a criminal court of compounding offences under S. 320 - Cases where power to quash criminal proceedings may be exercised where the parties have settled their dispute, held, depends on facts and circumstances of each case - Before exercise of inherent quashment power under S.482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact."
6. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also on perusal of the provisions under which the case is registered, it is appropriate to allow the criminal petition in terms of the compromise entered into between the parties.
1 2012(10) SCC 303 -7-
7. In view of the joint application and also affidavit filed by the petitioners, there is no embargo to this Court to record the compromise and quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, to secure the ends of justice.
Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed. The FIR dated 02.01.2022 in Crime No.235/2022 of Indiranagar Police for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 123 read with 34 of IPC stands quashed.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, all the pending I.As., do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE UN