IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5882 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Mr. G K Ananda Aged about 58 years S/o G.S. Krishna Rao Residing at No.588 “Grikrishna” 9th main B.H.C.S. Layout Uttarahalli Bangalore – 560 061.
(By Sri Hemanth Kumar .D – Advocate for Sri Abhinav Ramanand - Advocate) …Petitioner AND:
1. State by Halsoor Gate Police Station Bangalore – 560008.
2. Sri K. P. Gowrishankar Aged about 58 years S/o K. N. Basappa Residing at No.15, Chowlugalli Bangalore – 560 002.
...Respondents (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage Additional SPP for R-1; Sri K. S. Abhijith – Advocate for R-2) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.19281/2010 on the file of the VI A.C.M.M., Bangalore at Annexure-A and to quash the charge sheet bearing No.5/2010 dated 8.2.2010 filed before the VI A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission,, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Though in normal circumstances, this Court would not have interfered in the instant case for the reason that the trial has already commenced and five witnesses have already been examined before the trial court, yet having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, it is noticed that the dispute in question is seized by the arbitrator and the award passed by the sole arbitrator is challenged by the second respondent before the Civil Court and the matter is now pending in A.S.No.53/2015.
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was one of the partners of M/s. BGS Enterprises of which respondent No.2, CW.1 and CW.2 were also partners. The dispute having been arisen between the parties, the matter was referred to the decision of the arbitrator. One of the issues referred for decision of the arbitrator is whether the petitioner herein retired from the partnership firm w.e.f 31.03.2008. After considering the material produced before the arbitrator, the Hon’ble Arbitrator recorded a finding that the petitioner herein continued to be the partner of M/s.BGS Enterprises. Under the said circumstances, whether the amount in question was withdrawn by the petitioner as a partner of the firm may have to be decided by the arbitrator. As such, the decision in the arbitration suit has a direct bearing on the allegations made against the petitioner. In that view of the matter, continuance of the criminal proceedings during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings cannot be permitted.
For the above reasons, the petition is allowed. The charge sheet and the consequent proceedings pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru in C.C.No.19281/2010 are quashed, reserving liberty to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner on the same set of allegations subject to the final results in the arbitration suit arising out the award in A.C.No.38/2014, from the stage where the proceedings have reached.
DKB Sd/- JUDGE