Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 594 (KAR)

Mayuresh Karlekar v. State of Karnataka

2019-03-08

JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

body2019
JUDGMENT : John Michael Cunha, J. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.4611/2016 have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.90/2016 arising out of PCR No.53728/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 341, 342, 384, 386, 406, 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.7110/2015 have sought to quash the proceedings initiated against them in Crime No.53/2015 arising out of PCR No.5937/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 66 of the IT Act. 2000. 3. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.8541/2016 have sought to quash the order dated 3.10.2016 passed by the XLIII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, in PCR No.53728/2016. 4. Among the parties, Shri Mayuresh Karlekar, Shri Anji, Shri S. Pradeep Kumar and Shri Nayaz Ahmed are present. The parties have filed joint memos in respective petitions. 5. The joint memo filed in Crl.P.4611/2016, reads as under: "1. The dispute between the parties to the petition is resolved amicably at the intervention of their common friends and well-wishers. 2. In order to maintain business goodwill and harmonious relationship, the parties agree to bury all their differences arising out of the contracts which they had entered into. 3. In terms of the settlement arrived at, each of the parties to the above petition, do not have any claim whatsoever against the other in relation to the Memorandum of Understandings, dated 15.03.2014 and 17.03.2014 as well as the Term Sheet dated 18.09.2013. The settlement arrived at between the parties to the above petition has also necessitated them to withdraw the cases that are filed against each other that are pending consideration before the trial Court. 4. What is challenged by the petitioners in the above petition is, The Order of reference passed by the Trial Magistrate on the complaint filed by the second respondent in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequential act of the first respondent police in registering the Crime against the petitioners. 5. 5. In view of the settlement arrived at, without going into the merits of the matter, the second respondent has absolutely no objection whatsoever to allow the above petition and set at naught the Order of reference, quash the First Information Report filed pursuant to the Order of reference and the complaint of the second respondent be ordered to be dismissed. Therefore, the parties to the above named, humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to record this Memo, allow the above Petition, set at naught the Order which is impugned in the above Criminal Petition, quash the First Information Report filed pursuant to the Order of reference and dismiss the complaint of the second respondent Institution/Company, filed before the Trial Magistrate, getting itself represented through its authorized representative/signatory, in the ends of justice." 6. The joint memo filed in Crl.P.7110/2015, reads as under: "1. The dispute between the parties to the petition is resolved amicably at the intervention of their common friends and well-wishers. 2. In order to maintain business goodwill and harmonious relationship, the parties agree to bury all their differences arising out of the contracts which they had entered into. 3. In terms of the settlement arrived at, each of the parties to the above petition, do not have any claim whatsoever against the other in relation to the Memorandum of Understandings, dated 15.03.2014 and 17.03.2014 as well as the Term Sheet dated 18.09.2013. The settlement arrived at between the parties to the above petition has also necessitated them to withdraw the cases that are filed against each other that are pending consideration before the trial Court. 4. What is challenged by the petitioners in the above petition is, The Order of reference passed by the Trial Magistrate on the complaint filed by the respondent Institution/Company getting itself represented through its authorized representative/signatory in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequential act of the first respondent police in registering the Crime against the petitioners. 5. 5. In view of the settlement arrived at, without going into the merits of the matter, the second respondent has absolutely no objection whatsoever to allow the above petition and set at naught the Order of reference, quash the First Information Report filed pursuant to the Order of reference and the complaint of the second respondent be ordered to be dismissed. Therefore, the parties to the above named, humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to record this Memo, allow the above Petition, set at naught the Order which is impugned in the above Criminal Petition, quash the First Information Report filed pursuant to the Order of reference and dismiss the complaint of the second respondent Institution/Company, filed before the Trial Magistrate, getting itself represented through its authorized representative/signatory, in the ends of justice." 7. The joint memo filed in Crl.P.8541/2016 reads as under: "1. The dispute between the parties to the petition is resolved amicably at the intervention of their common friends and well-wishers. 2. In order to maintain good harmonious relationship, the parties agree to bury all their differences arising out of the Order of reference passed by the trial Magistrate. 3. The settlement arrived at between the parties to the above petition has necessitated them to withdraw the cases that are filed against each other that are pending consideration before the trial Court. 4. What is challenged by the petitioners in the above petition is, The Order of reference passed by the Trial Magistrate on the complaint filed by the second respondent in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequential act of the first respondent police in registering the Crime against the petitioners. In view of the settlement arrived at, without going into the merits of the matter, the second respondent has absolutely no objection whatsoever to allow the petition and set at naught the Order of reference, quash the First Information Report filed pursuant to the Order of reference and the complaint of the second respondent be ordered to be dismissed. In view of the settlement arrived at, without going into the merits of the matter, the second respondent has absolutely no objection whatsoever to allow the petition and set at naught the Order of reference, quash the First Information Report filed pursuant to the Order of reference and the complaint of the second respondent be ordered to be dismissed. Therefore, the parties to the above named, humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to record this Memo, allow the above Petition, set at naught the Order which is impugned in the above Criminal Petition, quash the First Information Report filed pursuant to the Order of reference and dismiss the complaint of the second respondent Institution/Company, filed before the Trial Magistrate, getting itself represented through its authorized representative/signatory, in the ends of justice." 8. The dispute between the parties had arisen out of two Memorandum of Understandings and Term sheet executed between Golden Gate Properties Limited and United Land Bank represented by Shri S. Pradeep Kumar. Arbitration also was initiated at the instance of Golden Gate Properties Ltd. There are allegations that in connection with this dispute, certain cheques were got up under duress and hence, the police officials against whom the said allegations were levelled are also made parties to the complaint in PCR No.53728/2016. 9. Presently, the parties have resolved their disputes interse and have arrived at a mutual settlement as reflected in the joint memos submitted by the parties. The joint memos are signed by Shri Mayuresh Karlekar representing Golden Gate Properties Ltd. and Shri S. Pradeep Kumar representing United Land Bank and their respective counsels. 10. Since the dispute between the parties has arisen out of the Memorandum of understandings and the Term sheet, the learned SPP has no objection to accept the joint memos filed by the respective parties, as the same do not offend any provisions of law. The aforesaid parties are present before court and submit that the terms of the joint memo are true and voluntary and they have withdrawn the allegations made against each other and request this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the respective petitioners in terms of the joint memos filed in each of the petitions. 11. The submissions of the parties are taken on record. The joint memos are accepted. Petitions are disposed of in terms of the said joint memos. 11. The submissions of the parties are taken on record. The joint memos are accepted. Petitions are disposed of in terms of the said joint memos. Accordingly, (i) the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.90/2016 arising out of PCR No.53728/2016 are hereby quashed; (ii) the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.53/2015 arising out of PCR No.5937/2015 are hereby quashed ; and (iii) the order dated 3.10.2016 passed by the XLIII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, in PCR No.53728/2016 is hereby quashed. In view of the above order, I.A.No.2/2016 in Crl.P.No.4611/2016 and I.A.Nos.1/2016, 2/2015, 2/2016 and 1/2019 in Crl.P.No.7110/2015 are dismissed.