✦ Karnataka High Court

SMT. SUNAYANA BASU MALLIK, ADVOCATE) v. SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

Criminal Petition No. 5934 of 2018SURA3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

The petition is allowed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 55. In that view of the matter, being of the considered opinion that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and there are no criminal ingredients made out in the present complaint. The essential character of the dispute being the recovery of money allegedly due…

Judgment

1.

MS. ANU SASI, W/O ARUN KUMAR M, AGE ABOUT 32 YEARS, DEPUTY SENIOR MANAGER, NEXT RADIO LIMITED, ROMAR HOUSE, 1ST FLOOR, JAGANNATHAN ROAD, NUGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 001.

2.

MR. VINEET SINGH HUKMANI, S/O JAIKRISHAN SINGH HUKMANI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEXT RADIO LIMITED, OFFICE AT NO.13, MUSEUM ROAD, 2ND PHASE, SHANTHALA NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

3.

MR. DILIP CHERIAN, S/O CHERIAN CHERIAN, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, NON-EXECUTIVE INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR, NEXT RADIO LIMITED, OFFICE AT NO.13, MUSEUM ROAD, 2ND PHASE, SHANTHALA NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001.

4.

MR. ADILLE JAHANGIR SUMARIWALLA, S/O JEHANGIR SUMARIWALLA, NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10476 CRL.P No. 5934 of 2018 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, NON-EXECUTIVE INDEPENDENT DIRECTOR, NEXT RADIO LIMITED, OFFICE AT NO.13, MUSEUM ROAD, 2ND PHASE, SHANTHALA NAGAR, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI. ABHILASH VAIDYANATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUNAYANA BASU MALLIK, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. DISHA COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD., DISHANTAR, NO.16, CHURCH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJ MOHAN (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAHUL G SANGRESHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 01.06.2018 IN CR.NO.108/2018 REGISTERED BY WILSON GARDEN POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF COMPLAINT DATED 01.06.2018 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 408, 420, 468 AND 471 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10476 CRL.P No. 5934 of 2018 ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "Quash the FIR dated 01/06/2018 in Crime No. 0108/2018 registered by Wilson Garden Police Station on filing of complaint dated 01/06/2018 offence punishable under Section 408, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC pending on the file of 4th Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru, vide ANNEXURE-"A" and "B" and any ancillary actions pursuant to the Impugned FIR in the interest of justice and equity. "

2. A complaint was lodged on 01.06.2018 by respondent No.2 before the Wilson Garden Police Station Respondent No.1, on which basis Crime No.108/2018 was registered for the offenses punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468, 471 of the IPC pending on the file of IV Additional CMM, Bengaluru

3. The allegation made in the complaint against the petitioners alleging that M/s. Next Radio Limited, of which the petitioners are officers, had raised, fabricated invoice on respondent No.2 calling upon respondent No.2 to make payments. Believing the same to be true, respondent No.2 made payments for the amounts claimed. Subsequently, realizing that no services has - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10476 CRL.P No. 5934 of 2018 claimed had been rendered and the amounts paid were not so due. As such, the aforesaid complaint was filed.

4. Respondent Nos.2 a O.S.No.8485/2018 for recovery of the said amounts. In the said suit, a settlement has been arrived at in terms of a settlement agreement dated 22.12.2022. In pursuance of which, the parties have resolved their disputes and the suit has also been withdrawn.

Operative part

5.

In that view of the matter, being of the considered opinion that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and there are no criminal ingredients made out in the present complaint. The essential character of the dispute being the recovery of money allegedly due from the petitioners by respondent No.2, no ingredients for the aforesaid offences being made out. I pass the following: i) ii) ::ORDER:: The petition is allowed. The FIR dated 01.06.2018 in Crime No.10.08.2018 registered by the Wilson Garden Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 468 - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10476 CRL.P No. 5934 of 2018 and 471 of pending on the file of the IV Additional CMM, Bengaluru is hereby quashed. iii) In view of dismissal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications do not survive consideration and the same stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 408, 420, 468, 471.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Petition No. 5934 of 2018). ← Search more judgments