IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8223 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MURUGABHARTI S/O SUBRAMANIAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT NO.39 BAZULA ROAD, T NAGAR CHENNAI-17 2. SMT BHUVANA BHARTI W/O SRI MURUGABHARTI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT NO.39 BAZULLA ROAD, T NAGAR CHENNAI-17 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: SHIVARAMA BHAT O, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 2. MIND LOGICX INFRATECH LIMITED REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MR SRIJITH, TECHLLANO, NO.10/1 GRAPHITE INDIA ROAD HUDI CIRCLE NEAR WHITEFIELD BANGALORE-560048. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 SRI: PUNAZH GANDHI.P., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.347/2016 ON THE IV ACMM, BANGALORE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406,420,506 R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the FIR registered against them in Crime No.347/2016 of Mahadevapura Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 506 read with 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned SPP-II for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, FIR has been registered against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2. The complainant – respondent No.2 claims to be the Director of M/s.Mindlogicx Infratech Limited incorporated under the Companies Act. According to the complainant, the Company was in some financial crisis in the year 2012 due to some of their clients failing to pay dues. Sensing the financial crisis, one Mr.Murugabharati (petitioner No.1) along with his wife namely petitioner No.2 offered to give some loan to the complainant on exorbitant interest rates and demanded 20% rate of interest. The Company repaid most of the amount along with interest. However, the petitioners filed recovery suits before the Madras High Court against the complainant/respondent No.2 in C.S.No.460/2014, C.S.No.461/2014 and C.S.No.462/2014. A compromise was entered into between the parties at the instance of the well-wishers and the complainant agreed to make the payments as under:
It is further stated that during the course of repayment from November 2015 onwards, the Company and the parties altered the payment schedule and made payments as per the altered payment schedule, but petitioners herein failed to issue “No Claim Certificate” with an intention to defraud the Company and thus contending that the petitioners have willfully misappropriated the amount of the complainant with a view to cheat and defraud the Company, the complainant has sought action against the petitioners for the above offences.
4. A reading of the complaint, on the face of it, indicates that the claim of the complainant is purely civil in nature. Complainant himself has admitted that in respect of the loan advanced by the petitioners, recovery suits were filed and at the instance of the well-wishers, the parties have entered into a compromise. The petitioners have produced the compromise memo submitted by the parties before the High Court of Judicature at Madras and the decrees passed in the respective proceeding in C.S.No.460/2014, C.S.No.461/2014 and C.S.No.462/2014 which clearly indicate that the complainant – Company has undertaken to jointly and severally pay the petitioners herein the sum mentioned above. Under the said circumstances, the course adopted by the complainant to take recourse to the criminal process in respect of the alleged claim is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of court. The allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of any of the criminal offence alleged against the petitioners. There is no element of cheating or deception in the transaction in question. There is nothing on record to indicate that either at the time of lending the loan or at the time of claiming recovery thereof, the petitioners herein have resorted to any act of cheating or deception. The very fact that the petitioners have taken recourse to civil action for recovery of the said amount indicates that lawful claim was made by the petitioners and they have obtained a decree for legitimate amounts due from respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 having abused the process of court by initiating criminal action to compel the petitioners to come to his illegal terms, the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. FIR registered against the petitioners in Crime No.347/2016 of Mahadevapura Police Station on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru and consequent proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss