Quashed

Paramesh Nandhan D C v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2023CRL.P/8072/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR alleging offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC arising from a betrothal dispute and subsequent allegations of second marriage. Court found absence of essential ingredients for cheating and intimidation. Proceedings quashed as abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned FIR in Crime No.227/2017 pending with the 56th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

Paramesh Nandhan D C Vs State of Karnataka by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 8072 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8072 OF 2017

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PARAMESH NANDHAN D C S/O SRI CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/AT NO.2, DODDERI VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 130.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M. PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶15

ANUSHA C D/O N. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 24 YARS R/AT NO.499/C, 11TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, GIRINAGAR BENGALURU-560085.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R-1/STATE; R-2 SERVED)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDING OF CRIME NO.227/2017 REGISTERED BY GIRINAGAR

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 8072 of 2017

¶21

POLICE/THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 506 OF IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

A FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging that, on 26.6.2016, the accused along with his family members came to the house of the complainant, and betrothal ceremony was performed on the same day by the parents of the complainant and the accused. After the engagement, the accused used to frequently call the 2nd respondent on phone, and emotional bonding developed between them. Thereafter, one Champashree called the 2nd respondent on phone stating that, she was in love with the accused and the accused had married her on 16.6.2016. The 2nd respondent secured the documents which disclosed that the accused had married Champashree, and when the same was confronted to the accused, the accused threatened that he would file a false complaint by using political influence. It was further alleged that, though the accused was married, suppressing the same got engaged with the 2nd respondent and cheated her. The police registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 506 and 420 of IPC. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

The engagement between the petitioner and 2nd

¶27

respondent took place on 16.6.2016 and the FIR was lodged on 18.8.2017. There is no allegation in the FIR that the accused

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 8072 of 2017

¶30

induced the respondent No.2 to get engaged with him with an intention to defraud her. In the absence of any essential ingredients to constitute the commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC, the registration of FIR for the aforesaid offence is impermissible.

¶31

To constitute the commission of offence under Section 506 of IPC, a person must threatened another of causing injury to his reputation or property with an intent to cause, an alarm to that person, or to do, or omit to do any act. In the present case, there is no allegation in the FIR that, the accused threatened the complainant of causing injury to her reputation or her property.

¶32

The petitioner had also lodged the FIR with the jurisdictional police against the 2nd respondent alleging that at the time of engagement, gold ornaments, mobile, laptop etc. were given to the 2nd respondent and also the 2nd respondent had demanded Rs.20 lakh towards dowry.

¶33

The allegations and the counter allegations made against each other indicate that the dispute between the parties arises out of the engagement during the subsistence of alleged marriage of the petitioner with one Champashree.

¶34

In view of preceding analysis, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 8072 of 2017

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶39

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.227/2017 pending on the file of the 56th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

BKM

¶42

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Paramesh Nandhan D C v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paramesh Nandhan D C v. State of Karnataka by

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

T N Roopa Devi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Hanumegowda Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. S. Rajeshwari Vs the State by

Manjegowda Vs Sri Ramannagowda

Sri Krishnaiah T H Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Javarayigowda Vs Sri Kumara