Allowed

Sri Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Sept 2021CRL.P/6547/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against petitioners accused of cheating and malicious insult. The court held that the alleged breach of marriage promise, unrelated to criminal fraud, was a civil and moral dispute, and the continuing criminal proceedings were an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.55285/2019 for offences under Sections 504, 506, 420 R/W Section 34 of IPC are quashed.

Sri Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.6547 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANJUNATHA,

¶9

S/O. SRINIVAS RAO, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. SRINIVAS RAO, S/O. R. NAGARAJA RAO, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. SUVARNA BAI, W/O. SRINIVAS RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶12

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF NO.272, SAI AKSHAY, 9^TH BLOCK, ANJANPURA, BENGALURU – 560 062.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT. PRIYANKA S. ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GURU PRASANNA S., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BANASAVADI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

SMT. ASHA CHOWHAN, W/O. RAGHUVEER CHOWHAN,

¶18

¶19

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. NO.1998, AKSHATHA YADAV, LAYOUT, ARAVINDNAGAR, OIL MILL ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 084.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. B.J. ROHITH, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. M. SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.55285/2019 HEARING ON 20.03.2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S. 504, 506, 420 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners on I.A.No.1/2021. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A.No.1/2021 filed by the petitioners seeking to urge additional grounds in support of main petition is allowed .

¶26

This petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet in C.C.No.55285/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 420 R/W Section

¶27

¶28

34 of IPC, pending on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru (for short "the trial Court").

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶30

learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri. M. Shashidhar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record.

¶31

The case of the prosecution in nutshell is

¶32

that based on the written complaint of one Smt. Asha Chowhan filed on 24.01.2019 alleging that Ankitha Chowhan, who is daughter, was working in a hospital and in the year 2018, through shadi.com contacted accused No.1 and placed marriage proposal for her daughter and thereafter, accused No.1 and Ankitha Chowan decided to get married. Accordingly, engagement was held on September, 2018. Subsequently, both of them were going out and were

¶33

¶34

chatting with each other over phone and that the petitioners are said to have taken Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant's daughter. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 has imposed so many conditions to be followed by her daughter, Ankitha Chowan after marriage and later, the complainant and her husband have also spent large amount of money for performing the marriage and Rs.10,50,000/was spent towards the marriage arrangement. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 refused to marry her by giving evasive reply. Therefore, prayed for taking action against them.

¶35

After registration of a case by the Police, they investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the present petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the said charge sheet filed against them.

¶36

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended

¶38

that respondent No.2 has suppressed some allegations made against her daughter, which was published in TV prior to her marriage being fixed with petitioner No.1. She was also facing a case filed by her during the course of her earlier employment and the same was not revealed by her to the petitioners. She was in the habit of smoking and has returned from United Kingdom. Looking in these angles, she is not fit for marriage. Therefore, the promise of marriage was broken and there is no fraudulent intention to cheat the complainant and her daughter. Absolutely there is no evidence to attract the provisions of Section 420 of IPC. If at all any amount recoverable from the petitioner, the complainant has to file a civil suit and recover the same through the appropriate Court of law. Hence, prayed for quashing of the charge sheet by allowing the petition.

¶39

¶40

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0223/2000 and the judgments of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M. Giriprasad Vs. K. Munikrishna Reddy reported in MANU/AP/0414/2014 and in the case of Varthaya Shanker and Ors. Vs. State of Telangana and Ors. Reported in MANU/HY/0174/2018 .

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the engagement of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was performed and has spent Rs.10,00,000/for the purpose of marriage arrangements, Rs.3,50,000/- towards choultry charges, which was non-refundable amount and Rs.1,03,000/for stitching of suit for petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.1 is also said to have received Rs.5,00,000/- from

¶42

¶43

the daughter of the complainant, which amounts are not recovered by them. Further, petitioner No.1 scolded and threatened complainant's daughter with dire consequences of death. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶44

Learned HCGP also made submissions

¶45

supporting the argument of the de-facto complainant.

¶46

Upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that engagement of petitioner No.1 and daughter of respondent No.2 was performed on 20.09.2018 and there was exchange of rings by them. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has provided saree and other material to the daughter of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 also has spent some money for the petitioner and also spent money for engaging the choultry and providing food to the invitees. The quarrel took place between the parties

¶47

¶48

in respect of the case between the daughter of respondent No.2 and the previous employer, where she has filed a case of sexual assault against one Muniswamy at her previous workplace, which was telecasted in a TV channel, which was not revealed to petitioner No.1. Thereafter, by knowing the same and by petty quarrels, the relationship was strained. Hence, the promise of marriage proposal has been broken between the parties. Of course, the engagement was broken in view of the previous incidents, respondent No.2 and her husband insisted petitioner No.1 for payment of money which was spent by the complainant and her husband towards the engagement, marriage arrangements, stitching of suit for petitioner No.1 and also choultry booking charges. This aspect of spending money for engagement and stitching charges are not denied by counsel for the petitioners. However, learned counsel for the

¶49

¶50

petitioners submits that the same shall be recovered by filing a civil suit before the appropriate Court of law. They cannot file a criminal case for recovery of money. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M. Giriprasad (supra), wherein at paragraph No.5 is held as under:

¶51

"5. I am of the considered view that the act complained of would not attract any criminal offence. Letdown from a promise to marry does not in any way attract the offence under Section 420 of IPC. Further, merely because A1 received some gold ornaments presented by the de facto complainant it does not constitute an offence of criminal breach of trust. It appears from the complaint allegations that the de facto complainant incurred some expenditure under the impression that his daughter's marriage would be performed with A1 on a date agreed upon by both parties. Subsequently, however, as A1 was not willing to marry LW 3-Thulasi, the daughter of the de facto complainant, the marriage could not be performed. The de facto

¶52

¶53

complainant since acted on the promise made by the petitioners, more particularly, that of A1, if he had really incurred any expenditure based on the assurance of the petitioners, he can recover the same by way of damages which remedy lies in Civil law. I do not think any criminal offence is made out against the petitioners warranting prosecution against them."

¶54

This case has similar facts and circumstances, wherein respondent No.2 spent money for the purpose of engagement and spent money for marriage arrangements and the marriage was not performed due to some misunderstanding between the parties. A perusal of the entire complaint reveals that there is no criminality shown in order to attract Section 420 of IPC. There is no intention of the petitioner to cheat the complainant after performance of engagement. But the marriage proposal was broken because of internal dispute in respect of previous case filed by her against

¶55

¶56

her previous colleague. There was strained relationship before marriage. Such being the case, it cannot be said that the petitioner has intentionally cheated the complainant after performance of engagement and broke the promise of marriage. It is neither a civil contract nor a criminal case. It is a moral matrimonial obligation for the purpose for entering to the marriage institution. Such being the case, the question of filing a criminal complaint by the bride or bridegroom is not permissible. Therefore, I am of the view that filing of the complaint and charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is abuse of process of law.

¶57

Absolutely there are no filthy words used by

¶58

accused to attract Section 504 of IPC and also no evasive reply by petitioner No.1 said to have threatened the life of complainant and her daughter have been used to attract Section 506 of IPC. There is

¶59

¶60

no proper material placed by the respondent to show that what abusive words were used to show the criminal intimidation by petitioner No.1. That apart, the daughter of respondent No.2, bride is an educated woman and also stayed in United Kingdom for some time and also presently said to be in abroad has not chosen to file complaint. There is no reason for not lodging a complaint by her. Such being the case, continuing of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is a sheer abuse of process of law. Hence, liable to be quashed.

¶61

Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed

¶62

and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.55285/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 420 R/W Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

¶63

¶64

Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.2

¶65

to file a suit before the appropriate Court of law for recovery of expenditures as stated above.

¶66

Sd/JUDGE

¶67

BMC

Sri Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G.B. Ananda Vs State of Karnataka

B.R.Chandrashekar Vs State by Cottonpet P.S.

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Arjun

Syed Ashraf Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. K Mohammed Haris Vs the Income Tax Department

Mohammed Sabtain S @ Saqlain Vs State by Vijaypaura Police