Allowed

Ms. Simi Kalakamba v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023CRL.P/1006/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings for cheating and criminal conspiracy. The court held that without specific overt acts against the petitioner in the charge sheet, continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process and quashed the case.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.30475/2021 against accused No.2 insofar as they relate to the petitioner are quashed.

Ms. Simi Kalakamba Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39961 CRL.P No. 1006 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1006 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MS. SIMI KALAKAMBA, DAUGHTER OF RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.64, NEAR PRAKRIYA SCHOOL, BEHIND MUNESHWARA LAYOUT, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU CITY – 562 125.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. TOMY SEBASTIAN, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.MALANIE SEBASTIAN., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, HEBBAL POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY. REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

MS. S. SATHYASHREE, DAUGHTER OF LATE SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.33, FIRST FLOOR, DOOR NO.2, 7^TH CROSS,

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39961 CRL.P No. 1006 of 2022

¶15

PAMPA BADAVANE, KEMPAPURA, HEBBALA, BANGALORE – 560 024.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.30475/2021 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.56/2020 OF HEBBAL P.S) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I A.C.M.M., BENGALURU CITY, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 504, 506, 417 AND 420 R/W 34 OF IPC SO FOR AS THE PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶20

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner/accused No.2 is sought to be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506, 417, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶23

The summary of the charge sheet is that, accused No.1 had started the Company in the name of Lead Raft International Private Limited and the defacto complainant was working as HR Manager in the said Company. Accused No.1 with an intention to cheat and make wrongful gain induced the defacto complainant to invest a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- stating that the same would be doubled and in pursuance of the same, the defacto complainant transferred an amount of

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:39961 CRL.P No. 1006 of 2022

¶26

Rs.20,00,000/- to the account of accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 gained the confidence of defacto complainant and by promising that he would give lucrative profit, purchased a phone valuing Rs.37,999/- to the defacto complainant. Thereafter, accused No.1 induced the defacto complainant to invest money in various account and through google pay and in all a sum of Rs.2,05,00,746/- was invested by the defacto complainant. In the month of July-2019, the accused No.1 by promising that he would obtain lease in favour of the defacto complaint induced her to part with a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. Thereafter, accused No.1 did not return the investment with profit and closed the Company. When the defaco complainant approached accused Nos.1 and 2 to return the money, at that time, accused No.1 issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.32,57,487/-. When the defacto complainant went to the Company, the accused Nos.1 and 2 abused and threatened with dire consequences.

¶27

Sri. Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that except omnibus and general allegation that the petitioner herein along with accused No.1 abused and threatened with dire consequences, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of inducing the defacto complainant to invest money by promising to pay double the money. Therefore, in the absence of any specific allegation the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the aforesaid offence. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:39961 CRL.P No. 1006 of 2022

¶30

The second respondent/defacto complainant though served with notice has not chosen to appear in person or through her counsel.

¶31

Learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State would submits that the charge sheet discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner, and the veracity of the allegation can be considered at the time of trial, and the same cannot be gone into in this petition, and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶33

A perusal of the charge sheet material discloses that except the allegation that the petitioner herein along with accused No.1 abused and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences, there is no specific overtact against the petitioner as to how and in what manner she abused or threatened the defacto complainant. Therefore, in the absence of any specific allegation, the continuation of criminal proceedings only on the basis of omnibus and general allegation will be an abuse of process of law. Even otherwise, the allegation of inducing the defacto complainant to invest money with an intention to cheat is against accused No1 and not against accused No.2. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:39961 CRL.P No. 1006 of 2022

¶38

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.30475/2021 on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru insofar it relates to accused No.2 stands quashed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Ms. Simi Kalakamba v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Simi Kalakamba 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Aparna Sanjeev Khatri Vs State of Karnataka

Ranjit Kumar Chaudhuri Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Manjunath M.S. Vs State of Karnataka

Mahammad Jaufar Vs State by

Smt. Elizabeth Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Jayaprakash M. U. Vs State by Peenya Police Station