Allowed

Smt Vinitha @ Vinisa W/O Santosh Sharma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Feb 2021CRL.P/101888/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who was accused No.2, for cheating and cyber offences. The court allowed the petition, holding that since proceedings against accused No.3 were quashed upon compensation and allegations were identical, the petitioner's case must also be quashed.

What did the court decide?

The entire proceedings in CC No.1130/2016 against the petitioner (Accused No.2) for the alleged offences are quashed.

Smt Vinitha @ Vinisa W/O Santosh Sharma Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

¶5

CRL.P. NO.101888 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. VINITHA @ VINISA W/O SANTOSH SHARMA AGED BOUT 33 YEARS, OCC:SERVICE, R/O A-410(B), 4^TH FLOOR,SHAKARPUR VARANDA, SHAKRAPUR, GANDHI NAGAR, NEW DELHI (EAST), NEW DELHI.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI.GOURISHANKAR H MOT, ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR,

¶13

SUBURBAN PS, HUBBALLI,

¶14

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶15

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶16

MOINUDIN MULLA S/O MAHBOOB ALI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC:PHOTOGRAPHER, R/O ALTAF NAGAR, OLD HUBBALLI, HUBBALLI, DIST:DHARWAD.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1) (R2-SERVED)

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1130/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER

¶20

¶21

SECTIONS 406, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 66C AND 66D OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000 INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

¶25

the petitioner is praying for quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No.1130/2016 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, insofar as she is concerned.

¶26

The facts are that, the present petitioner is accused No.2, one Ravindera Arora is accused No.3, one Nikil Arora is accused No.1 and Harijit Singh and Sujathsingh @ Sakshi are accused Nos.4 and 5 respectively in CC No.1130/2016. Accused No.1 is shown as absconding. The allegations in brief are that respondent No.2-Moinuddin Mulla wanted to purchase Panasonic AG-AC90A AVCCAM HD Camcorder+ Free Apple

¶27

¶28

iPhone 6-16GB Camera and he logged on to Quicker.com wherein he discovered one website namely www.store-1800.com which was a E-commerce business platform and after telephonic discussion, he remitted Rs.98,500/- to the account of said E-commerce business platform through his bank account on the assurance that he would get the said camera ordered by him next day immediately after ordering the product. It is further stated in the complaint that since he did not get the camera, he contacted some telephone number and he was told that he would get the camera on 11.5.2015; even on that day also, he did not get the camera. Accordingly, on 12.5.2015, he made several telephone calls to same numbers but he did not get any response and after waiting for sometime, on 19.5.2015, he lodged a complaint before the Sub-urban Police Station, Hubballi. The police on investigation filed charge sheet. The allegation in the charge sheet is to the effect that accused No.1-Nikil Arora, who is absconding, with the aid and assistance of present petitioner and rest of the accused

¶29

¶30

had advertised in website about various cameras being available for sale at a discount and after reading the same, the complainant was induced to pay a sum of Rs.98,500/- on the assurance by the accused that camera would be sent to his house and for that the complainant had remitted the money through his bank account and thereafter, the accused did not send the camera to the complainant and they had committed the various offences.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶32

the present petitioner is accused No.2 and insofar as accused No.3 is concerned, proceedings has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2017 in Crl.P. No.101397/2017 (Ravindra Arora Vs. The State of Karnataka & Another) . He submits that the allegation in the charge sheet is one and the same as against accused No.3 and the present petitioner inasmuch as allegation is that both had assisted accused No.1, who is absconding, in committing the offences. He further submits that this Court had quashed the proceedings against accused No.3 after the said accused had paid a sum of Rs.98,500/- to

¶33

¶34

the complainant which was the amount remitted by the complainant to the accused for purchasing the camera, and on filing an application, the parties approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings and accordingly, order dated 10.07.2017 came to be passed referred to above. His submission is that since the allegations against accused No.3 and the present petitioner are one and the same, once the criminal proceedings have been quashed against accused No.3, same cannot be denied to the present petitioner. Therefore, he prays that this petition is entitled to be allowed.

¶35

Learned HCGP does not dispute the fact that accused No.3 and the present petitioner stand on the same footing insofar as charge sheet allegations are concerned. He submits that as against accused No.3, charge sheet and further proceedings have been quashed by this Court in Crl.P. No.101397/2017 dated 10.07.2017.

¶36

After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, what is evident is that accused No.1 with the aid and

¶37

¶38

assistance of the present petitioner-accused No.2, accused No.3 and other two accused had made advertisement through E-Commerce business platform offering cameras at discount rates and on believing the same, respondent No.2-complainant had paid a sum of Rs.98,500/- through online transaction and thereafter, camera was not delivered to him. It is also not in dispute that accused No.3 subsequently paid a sum of Rs.98,500/to respondent No.2 herein and thereafter, accused No.3 and respondent No.2 filed compounding petition before this Court and by accepting the same, this Court in Crl.P. No.101397/2017 passed the order dated 10.07.2017 quashing the criminal proceedings in CC No.1130/2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol as against accused No.3. The allegation against accused No.3 and the present petitioner stand on the same footing and they are indivisible. In that view of the matter, this petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

a) The above petition is allowed.

¶41

¶42

b) The entire proceedings in CC

¶43

No.1130/2016 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, insofar as the present petitioner (Accused No.2) is concerned, is quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

JTR

Smt Vinitha @ Vinisa W/O Santosh Sharma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Vinitha @ Vinisa W/O Santosh Sharma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renuka W/O.Maruti Goundalkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Ravishnkar S/O Hirojappa Kalal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sarojini W/O. Gireppa Jakkannavar Vs Channayya S/O. Mallayya Hireamth

Laxman Mannikeri Vs the State of Karnataka

Hanamant S/O Bharamappa Madar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahabaleshwar Lingesh Bhat Vs Ganesh Lingesh Bhat