Prajith R Vs Smt. Xxxx — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

Prajith R Vs Smt. Xxxx — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.544 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

PRAJITH R., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O RAJAN KUNJI PILLAI, R/AT NO.35/5, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, NGR LAYOUT, MADIVALA POST, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 068.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . SMT. XXXX., W/O PRAJITH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.172, MAHILA NAGAR, HULLAHALLI GATE, JIGANI HOBLI – 562 106 ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU.

2 . STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION, ANEKAL CIRCLE,

2

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 106

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.158/2020 ON PENDING FILE OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 507, 498A, 504, 417 OF IPC PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1 AND ALLOW THIS CRL.P WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.06.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.158 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 507 and 417 of the IPC.

Heard Sri H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri G. Manjunatha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.2.

3

Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

The 1^st respondent is the complainant. The petitioner is the sole accused. The complainant seeks to register a complaint on 10-11-2020 making certain allegations against the petitioner. The complainant alleges that she is married to one Jagadish and at the stage when the complainant was carrying and was at the 8^th month stage, her husband had dropped the complainant in her parents’ house at Arakalgud of Hassan District. After two years, the husband comes back to her matrimonial house and gets the complainant and her daughter back to Bangalore. In the complaint it is further alleged that the husband stayed along with her for about six months and then did not return to the house for some time. Therefore, the complainant had to obtain employment at Mariko Marketing Company.

In the place of employment, the petitioner comes in contact with her and it is alleged that the petitioner assured that he would marry the complainant. It is further alleged in the complaint

4

that the complainant informed the petitioner that she was five years older to him. However, it is said that the complainant was lured into a relationship with the petitioner on the assurance of marriage. When the petitioner did not keep up his assurance of marriage, the complainant registered a complaint before the jurisdictional Police on 10.11.2020 alleging offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 507 and 417 of the IPC. The registration of crime is what leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the complainant at the time when she was in dire need of help, the petitioner had helped her no doubt, but has never assured her that he would marry her, as the complainant was already married and did have a child. Unless she would come out of the marriage, even the allegation that the petitioner had promised to marry her cannot be laid against the petitioner. He would contend that the facts in the case at hand do not have any of the ingredients of offences so alleged against the petitioner. At best, the petitioner can be called a paramour and nothing beyond

5

that. He would submit that the proceedings if permitted to continue would become an abuse of process of law and has to be quashed.

The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent/ complainant would seek to refute the submissions to contend that the complainant is now neither here nor there. The petitioner promised her that he would marry her and has now breached the said marriage assurance. Therefore, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. Whether the offences alleged are the ones that would have ingredients are all a matter of investigation. While filing the charge sheet, the Police may even file a ‘B’ report or drop the charges that are not appropriately laid against the petitioner.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The entire issue now springs from the complaint. Therefore, I deem it

6

appropriate to notice the compliant. The complaint reads as

follows:

“£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀéAvÀ HgÀÄ CgÀPÀ®UÀÆr£À°è 9£ÉÃ vÀgÀUÀw ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÁUÉÎ £À£Àß zÉÆqÀØªÀÄä£À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EAzÁætÂ £À£Àß£ÀÄß dUÀ¢üÃ±À£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄzsÀÄªÉªÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ 8 wAUÀ¼À UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁVzÁÝUÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄß DvÀ£À HgÁzÀ CgÀPÀ®UÀÆr£À ¥ÀPÀÌ PÀAZÉÃ£ÀºÀ½î CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä eÉÆvÉ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ §AzÀÄ £À£Àßö£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß 2 ªÀµÀðzÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀAVÃvÁ¼£ÀÄß DqÀÄUÉÆÃrAiÀÄ°è À ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁr Ej¹zÀÝ 6 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ eÉÆvÉVzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ J°èAiÉÆÃ ºÉÆÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ªÁªÀ¸ï §gÀ°®è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á ªÀµÀðUÀ¼ÁzÀgÀÆ §gÀ°®è £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ J¯Áè PÀqÉ ºÀÄqÀÄQzÀgÀÆ ¥ÀvÉÛAiÀiÁV®è £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ¸ÀgÉÆÃdªÀÄä ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉÝ£ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄrªÁPÉÌ ªÀÄ£É §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¹zÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁåjPÉÆÃ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁPÉðnAUï PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¥Àæfvï JA§ÄªÀ£À ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄªÁVzÀÄÝ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄzsÀÄªÉªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£ÉAzÀÄ PÉÃ½zÀ DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzsÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVzÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄzsÀÄªÉªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä DUÀÄvÁÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀVAvÀ 5 ªÀµÀð aPÀÌªÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀÄªÉªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀîªÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÆ DvÀ£À PÉÃ¼ÀzÉÃ EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÃ½ ªÀÄzsÀÄªÉªÀiÁrPÉÆ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÉ. DUÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzsÀÄªÉUÉ M¦àPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ M¦àPÉÆ¼Àî°®èªÁzÀgÀÆ ºÀoÀ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹ FUÉÎ ¢£ÁAPÀ:15-05-2015 gÀ°è ºÁ¸À£À «ªÁºÀ£À £ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄzsÀÄªÉªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ ºÀÄ®èºÀ½îAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ 2 ªÀµÀð ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £ÀAvÀgÀ FUÉÎ 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¥Àæfvï ªÀÄ¯ÉÃ¶AiÀiÁzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ L & ¦ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ 2 ªÀµÀð £À£ÀUÉ ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀPÉÌ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ 2020£ÉÃ d£ÀªÀj¬ÄAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀ½¸ÀzÉÃ EzÀÄÝzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ DvÀ£À ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ÉÎ PÀgÉªÀiÁr ºÀt PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ E®è JAzÀgÉ ªÁªÀ¸ï ¨Á JAzÀÄ PÀgÉzÉ£ÀÄ DUÀ ¥Àæfvï £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ï §gÀ¯Áè E°è £Á£ÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÉÆA¢UÉ EzÉÝÃ£É. ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÉvÀÄ©qÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÄÛºÉÆÃVzÉÝÃ£ÉAzÀÄ w½¢PÉÆÃ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ¨Áj ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ £À£Àß £ÀA§gï ¨ÁèPï ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ£É. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆ¸À ¥ÉÆÃ£ï¤AzÀ PÁ¯ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ DvÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ ¤£Àß £ÉÆÃqÉÆÃPÉ C¸ÀºÀåªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¨sÁgÀvÀPÉÌ ¨Á, ºÀt PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀzÉÃ ¥ÀzÉÃ PÀgÉªÀiÁrzÀgÉ ¤£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ MAzÀÄ UÀw PÁtÂ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£ÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛ£É ºÁUÀÆ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÉÆA¢UÉ EgÀÄªÀ ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁPÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr PÉlÖ ªÀiÁvÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛ£É. DzÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¥Àæfvï ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄw¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjPÉÆ¼ÀîvÉÛÃ£É. ¥Àæfvï gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA*601151409374 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

7

The complaint narrates that the petitioner and the complainant had come in contact with each other and the complainant claims that the petitioner had assured that he would marry her notwithstanding the fact that she was 5 years older and a married woman having a child. It further narrates that two years ago i.e., two years prior to the complaint, the petitioner whom the complainant claims to be her husband, was in Malaysia and for two years every month for the purpose of living he used to send money. Therefore, he is of the traits of being a husband. Later he stopped answering calls of the complainant.

There is no document produced to demonstrate that the petitioner at any time was her husband nor there is evidentiary narration in the complaint. In fact, the petitioner has produced certain documents which would clearly demonstrate that one Jagadish was the husband of the complainant. This would become amply clear by the objections filed by the 1^st respondent. Paragraph-7 of the objections reads as follows:

“…. …. ….

8

7. The averments made in para 10 of the petitioner that respondent is a married lady and a girl of age 20 years from 1^st wedlock with Mr.Jagadish is true. The rest of the allegations in same para 10 are hereby denied as false and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. However, only up to January 2020, the petitioner sent some amount to the respondent.”

In reply to the averments that the 1^st respondent was already a married lady and having daughter of 20 years of age, it is answered that it is true and the wed lock had happened with Mr.Jagadish. It further narrates that upto January 2020 the petitioner had sent some amount to the complainant. The 1^st respondent/complainant has also averred that the petitioner had married another woman in Malaysia and, therefore, the complainant had to file a petition in M.C. No. 582 of 2021 seeking restitution of conjugal rights, and it is claimed that it is the duty of the petitioner to maintain the complainant and her daughter.

In the teeth of the aforesaid facts whether the offences alleged can be permitted to be investigated into. The offence alleged is one punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. There is not even a document to demonstrate that the petitioner and the 1^st

9

respondent are married. It is in fact admitted by the complainant that she is already married to one Sri. Jagadish and has a child born from the said wedlock. If she is already married to Sri. Jagadish it is highly ununderstandable as to how the present petitioner can be claimed to be her husband. The objections of the complainant does not narrate that she has secured a decree of divorce from the earlier husband Sri. Jagadish. When the said marriage is still subsisting, it can hardly be said that the petitioner is her husband and the complainant and her daughter need to be maintained. Merely because the petitioner has sent some money some time for the need of the complainant, it cannot be said that the petitioner has to maintain them without a legal bond between the complainant and the petitioner. Therefore, the offence under Section 498A of the IPC which deals with dowry harassment and cruelty is loosely laid against the petitioner.

The other offence punishable is under Section 417 of the IPC which deals with cheating. Cheating is alleged on the ground that the petitioner has breached the promise of marriage. The complainant admits that she is already married to Sri. Jagadish and

10

has a child from the wedlock. If she is already married, there can be no question of cheating on the breach of promise of marriage. Therefore, the said offence also cannot be laid against the petitioner.

Section 504 of the IPC deals with intentional insult with an intent to provoke breach of peace. I fail to understand, in the facts of the case, how could such an offence even be thought of as the provision relates to provocation which is going to cause or break public peace.

The other offence is under Section 507 of the IPC. Section 507 deals with criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication. There is no anonymous communication in the case at hand made by the petitioner. The complainant appears to be twining a story to get hold of the petitioner which, in the considered view of this court, if permitted would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

11

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

O R D E R

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) FIR registered by the Bannerghatta Police Station in Crime No.158 of 2020 and pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC, Anekal, Bangalore Rural District stands quashed.

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence proceedings pending between the parties.

Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2022 stands disposed.

Sd/JUDGE

Bkp CT:SS