Allowed

Sri Vignesh Prabhu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2023CRL.P/6289/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner for offences under Sections 385 and 506 of the IPC. The Bench held that the Investigation Officer failed to verify the video's authenticity or establish the requisite intention to extort, as the subsequent messages for vacating premises could not constitute extortion.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution of the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C. No.555/2016 for offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 IPC is quashed.

Sri Vignesh Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 6289 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VIGNESH PRABHU S/O GOVINDARAYA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT SOWBHAGYA, SORABHA ROAD, SUBHASHNAGAR, SAGAR TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577214.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. Y.R.SADASIVA REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHUL P., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA MULKI POLICE STATION, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574154, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. B. DEVADAS RAO S/O LATE SRI. VAMAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT YOGADHAMA, KERE KADU, KENCHANAKERE POST, MULKI, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574154.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶17

SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FORE RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN C.C.NO.555/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-A

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 6289 of 2017

¶21

WHICH IS FILED BY 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MUDABIDRE IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged the chargesheet filed against him in C.C No.555/2016 pending trial before the Civil Judge and JMFC., Moodabidri for the offences punishable under Sections 385, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, the ‘IPC’).

¶25

The case of the prosecution was that respondent No.2 lodged a report with the respondent No.1 stating that the petitioner herein along with accused Nos.1 and 3 had circulated a video from a mobile phone bearing No.8105210244. He stated that the video was forwarded from another mobile phone bearing subscriber No.8904851550 to Sri Sumit Shet – CW.11 - Trustee of Sri Shaktidarshana Yogashrama (for short, ‘Ashrama’) on his mobile phone bearing No.9987787799 on 26.12.2015 at about 6.21 p.m. The respondent No.2 alleged that the video found in the whatsapp message was purportedly recorded on 29.03.2014 at 5.53 p.m. and in the said video, the respondent No.2 was found kissing a lady disciple, namely,

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 6289 of 2017

¶28

Smt. Deepa (accused No.3). Respondent No.2 alleged that this was a doctored video, fabricated by the accused to besmirch the reputation of the Ashrama amongst devotees of the Ashrama. He alleged that accused No.2 in collusion with the other accused had circulated baseless allegations against him. He claimed that when he enquired with the accused No.3, she disclosed that she wanted respondent No.2 to leave the Ashrama and handover the administration of the Ashrama to her.

¶29

Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.11/2016 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶30

The Investigating officer seized the mobile phones used for circulating videos on 10.01.2016 and drew up a mahazar of the conversation contained in whatsapp messages. He thereafter took up investigation and recorded statements of various witnesses and filed a chargesheet for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 6289 of 2017

¶33

The Trial Court in terms of a cryptic order dated 09.08.2016 held as follows:

¶34

“xxx

¶35

Perused the charge sheet and other materials available on record. Cognizance taken for the offences punishable U/s 385, 506b r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶36

There are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused for the offences punishable U/s 385, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶37

Office is directed to register the case as C.C. 555/2016 and call on 27.10.2016.”

¶38

Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition

¶39

is filed.

¶40

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner / accused No.2 contends that except seizing the mobile phones used for forwarding messages, the Investigating Officer did nothing to verify whether the video found in the whatsapp message was genuine or otherwise. He submitted that a bare perusal of the report submitted by the respondent No.2 with the respondent No.1, did not disclose the requisites of an offence of "extortion" as defined under Section 383 of IPC and consequently, no case

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 6289 of 2017

¶43

was made out for an offence punishable under Section 385 of IPC. Similarly, he contends that the petitioner did not threaten the respondent No.2 or intimidate him in any manner whatsoever and therefore, offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC was not made out.

¶44

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand invited the attention of this Court to the statement made in the report lodged by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 and contended that the intention of circulating video was to ensure that respondent No.2 gave up his spiritual position as the trustee of the Ashrama and hand over administration of Ashrama to accused Nos.1 to 3. She therefore contends that all the accused had conspired to circulate the video so as to threaten the respondent No.2. She submitted that the statement of the witnesses recorded clearly indicate that the accused had in tandem attempted to tarnish the image of respondent No.2 and therefore, offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC were made out against the petitioner.

¶45

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the

¶46

other hand submitted that the material on record disclosed that

¶47

¶48

CRL.P No. 6289 of 2017

¶49

the accused were all involved in circulating a video and the report of the respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 justified the chargesheet filed against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶50

I have considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶51

The respondent No.2 alleged that the offensive video was forwarded to CW.11 on 26.12.2015 at 6.21 p.m. from mobile phone No.890485150. Later, on 28.12.2015, 03.01.2016, 05.01.2016 and 07.01.2016, he received messages on his mobile phone bearing No.9448156717 from mobile phone bearing No.9632539269 which belonged to accused No.3 asking him to leave the Ashrama. For an offence punishable under Section 385 of the IPC, the accused must have committed "extortion" as defined under Section 383 of the IPC which reads as follows:

¶52

“383. Extortion. — Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable

¶53

¶54

CRL.P No. 6289 of 2017

¶55

security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.

¶56

There is no material to establish that the petitioner and accused Nos.1 and 3 had circulated the aforesaid video with an intention to “extort” any valuable thing from respondent No.2. On the contrary, the allegations found in the report of the respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 indicates that the messages sent by accused No.3 from her mobile phone asking respondent No.2 to leave the Ashrama are all subsequent to circulation of the video and therefore, cannot constitute an offence of "extortion" as defined under Section 383 of the IPC.

¶57

A perusal of the chargesheet does not disclose whether the Investigating Officer had verified the source of the video and also whether the video was either fabricated or concocted or doctored or photoshopped. When an offence of this nature was reported to the Police, it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to procure the source of the video and thereafter take further steps to ascertain whether circulation of the video was with any oblique intention to extort any valuable thing from respondent No.2. If there was no element of extortion, then the question of prosecuting the petitioner /

¶58

¶59

CRL.P No. 6289 of 2017

¶60

accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 383 or 385 of the IPC would not arise. If the accused Nos.1 to 3 have circulated a video which is actually recorded in the CCTV of Ashrama campus, the only offence if at all, would be an offence of unauthorizedly copying from the CCTV which is not, the present case. Therefore, there is no offence made out as against the petitioner under Section 385 read with Section 34 of IPC. Similarly, a perusal of the chargesheet as well as the complaint does not disclose any ground to proceed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. Therefore, the prosecution initiated against the petitioner deserves to be quashed.

¶61

Hence, the petition is allowed. The prosecution of the petitioner / accused No.2 in C.C. No.555/2016 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC., Moodbidri, for the offences punishable under Sections 385 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is quashed.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

SMA

¶64

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri Vignesh Prabhu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vignesh Prabhu 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

Gayathri Shivaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Manish Kumar Jain Vs Swati Shrivastava Jain

Sri Abdul Khuddus Vs State of Karnataka

R Shashanka Vs the State of Karnataka

Gopi Phanikumar Vs Hemalekha. B

Farooq Khan Vs the State of Karnataka