Allowed

Sri H C Lokesh v. the State by Sub Inspector of Police

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2021WP/9077/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition seeks to quash an FIR and complaint alleging forgery in a marriage registration. The High Court quashed the proceedings, holding that the complaint was filed with malafides, suppressed prior facts, and involved an abnormal delay, constituting an abuse of the court process under Lalita Kumari.

What did the court decide?

The impugned complaint at Annexure-E and FIR at Annexure-F in Cr.No.25/2018 against the petitioner are quashed.

Sri H C Lokesh Vs the State by Sub Inspector of Police — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.NO.9077/2018

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.9077/2018 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. H.C. LOKESH, S/O LATE M.CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS ADDITIONAL SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF SUB REGISTRAR, SARJAPURA, BANGALORE – 562 125.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE )

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE V.V. PURAM POLICE STATION, BANGALORE – 560 004.

¶14

DR. SRINATH CHWDAPPA, S/O LATE CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.708, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, 11^TH CROSS, MUTHYALANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 054 …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 10.02.2018 GIVE BY R-2 AT ANNEX-E AND

¶17

W.P.NO.9077/2018

¶18

¶19

IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.25/2018 DATED 10.02.2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 AT ANNEX-F IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONR IS CONCERNED (ACCUSED NO.7).

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

“Whether the proceedings in Cr.No.25/2018 of VV Puram police station against the petitioner amount to abuse of the process of the Court”? is the question involved in this case.

¶23

During the year 2016, the petitioner was working as Senior Sub-Registrar in Chamrajpet, SubRegistrar’s Office. On 30.03.2016, the marriage of the second respondent and one Chaitra K.G., was registered by the petitioner and the marriage registration certificate as per Annexure-C was issued to the parties.

¶24

Annexure-D-police notice dated 18.11.2016, shows that the second respondent filed complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore alleging that the documents produced by him at the time of registration of

¶25

W.P.NO.9077/2018

¶26

¶27

the marriage were substituted by some other documents. It was alleged that though he was resident of USA, the documents were produced to project him as resident of Bangalore.

¶28

The Commissioner of Police referred the said complaint to Central Police Station, Bangalore. The said police registered the case in NCR No.82/2016 and conducted an enquiry. As part of the said enquiry, Central police summoned N.Manjunath, the then Senior SubRegistrar of the Sub-Registrar Office, Chamrajpet and conducted an enquiry. On 21.11.2016 he submitted his statement along with the documents as per Anneuxre-D1.

¶29

According to his statement the second

¶30

respondent and Chaitra K.G. submitted the following documents for the purpose of registration

¶31

i) application for registration of the marriage in Form No.1;

¶32

ii) copy of the transfer order of the second respondent;

¶33

iii) Copy of SSLC certificate of Chaitra KG;

¶34

W.P.NO.9077/2018

¶35

¶36

iv) Copy of the election identity card of both bride and bride groom; and

¶37

v) Wedding invitation card.

¶38

He also submitted that none of the documents

¶39

alleged by the complainant namely passport, visa and address proof of the complainant were produced at the time of registration of the marriage. On recording his statement and conducting the enquiry, central police closed the said case.

¶40

Two years thereafter, the second respondent filed another complaint as per Annexure-E dated 10.02.2018 before V.V. Puram Police Station with the same allegation against his wife, her relatives, staff of the office of Sub-Registrar, Chamrajpet and the Sub-Registrar of the said office. On the basis of such a complaint, the first respondent registered FIR as per Annexure-F in Cr.No.25/2018 against his wife, her relatives, SubRegistrar, and the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Chamrajpet.

¶41

W.P.NO.9077/2018

¶42

¶43

On that basis, the police inspector of VV Puram station issued notice as per Annexure-H dated 19.02.2018 summoning the petitioner for enquiry. Petitioner seeks quashing of the complaint as per Annexure-E & FIR as per Annexure-F on the ground that the complaint and FIR are abuse of the process of the Court. It is further contended that two FIRs are tainted with malafides, second FIR is the out come of suppression of material facts and registration of the same is contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari.V vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & others.¹

¶44

Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned HCGP opposes petition on the ground that the first complaint was only against officials of the Sub-Registrar’s Office and the same registrar has given different statement in the 2^nd FIR, therefore, the matter requires investigation.

¶45

Apparently, in the 2^nd complaint the second respondent has suppressed filing of the first complaint,

1 (2014) 2 SCC 1

W.P.NO.9077/2018

the registration of the same in the NCR and closure of the said case. That itself shows that second complaint smacks malafides.

¶50

Secondly, there was delay of two years in filing the second complaint. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 20.6 of the judgment in Lalita Kumari’s referred to supra has held that the preliminary enquiry has to be conducted before registering the FIR, if it is found in the case that the complaint arise out of a matrimonial dispute and there is abnormal delay in initiating the criminal prosecution. It was held that, if there was delay of three months in filing the complaint and that has not been explained, FIR cannot be registered without preliminary enquiry.

¶51

The impugned complaint and FIR are contrary to the ratio laid down in Lalita Kumari’s case referred to supra. On that count itself the FIR and complaint are liable to be quashed. The continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, the petition is allowed.

¶52

W.P.NO.9077/2018

¶53

¶54

The impugned complaint at Annexure-E and FIR at Annexure-F in Cr.No.25/2018 against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

Sri H C Lokesh v. the State by Sub Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri H C Lokesh v. the State by Sub Inspector of Police

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

R. Naveen Vs M. Venugopal

Sri v Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B L Girija Shanker Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Surendra Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka by

Sri. Manjunath Vs Smt. Sheela

Kumar Vs Chikkalingaiah