Quashed

Nikeata Jha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023WP/7466/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged prosecution for alleged forgery and cheating related to a passport. The High Court considered the settlement between the parties, the filing of a separate domestic violence case against the respondent, and the failure to seize the original alleged fake document, concluding the prosecution was unjustified.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution of the petitioner in C.C. No.7255/2019 for the specified offences under IPC and Passports Act is quashed.

Nikeata Jha Vs the State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36436 WP No. 7466 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 7466 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NIKEATA JHA D/O SRI NASIB NARAYAN JHA, 29 YEARS, NO.65, BEST COUNTY -3, NEAR SAMBARAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE, POST VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE 560 097, (AS IN THE CHARGE SHEEE)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. K. HEMALATHA MAJOR IN AGE, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, 80 FEET ROAD, 8^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560047. CORRECTED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 09.06.2021.

¶14

ASHISH KUMAR JHA S/O SRI C.M. JHA, 39 YEARS, 1/B, STREET 78, BHILAI NAGAR, SECTOR 06, CIVIC CIRCLE, BHILAI DURG, CHATTISGARH-490006.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36436 WP No. 7466 of 2020

¶17

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶18

SMT. SAROJINI MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.7255 OF 2019 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE XLV (NOW XXXI) ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 466, 468, 471, 474 READ WITH 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 12(B) OF THE PASSPORTS ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the prosecution

¶23

launched against her in C.C. No.7255/2019 initially filed before the Court of XLV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and later transferred to XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and now pending trial before the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as the 'Trial Court') for the offences punishable under

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:36436 WP No. 7466 of 2020

¶25

Sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Section 12(B) of the Passports Act, 1967 (for short, 'the Act, 1967').

¶26

Respondent No.3 furnished information to the respondent No.2 about the petitioner furnishing a fake birth certificate to obtain a passport. Based upon this, the respondent No.2 addressed a communication dated 28.11.2017 requesting the police inspector to register a case against the petitioner following which a case in Crime No.479/2017 was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 468 and 420 of IPC read with Section 12(B) of the Act, 1967. The respondent No.1 after conducting an investigation filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 12(B) of the Act, 1967. The offence alleged against the petitioner under Section 12(B) of the Act, 1967 is not made out. It appears that the offence that must have been mentioned

¶27

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:36436 WP No. 7466 of 2020

¶28

in the charge sheet is under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act, 1967.

¶29

The Trial Court took cognizance and directed registration of criminal case, which was numbered as C.C. No.7255/2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 12(B) of the Act, 1967 and issued process to the accused.

¶30

Being aggrieved by the proceedings in C.C.

¶31

No.7255/2019 and the prosecution launched against her, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.3 had lodged the instant complaint with the respondent No.2 when the petitioner and the respondent No.3 were living together as a couple. He submits that there were matrimonial disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.3 which was ultimately settled between them in M.C No.5920/2017 before the VI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru, (for

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36436 WP No. 7466 of 2020

¶34

short, 'the Family Court') on 23.03.2018. He submits that the instant complaint was lodged prior to the settlement of the matrimonial disputes and therefore, the prosecution is unwarranted and deserves to be set at naught. He also submits that the petitioner had filed a case against respondent No.3, which resulted in C.C No.16215/2017 and in view of the settlement arrived at in M.C. No.5920/2017, the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.16215/2017 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the respondent No.3 herein was also quashed by this Court in Crl.P No.9964/2017 in terms of the order dated 23.03.2018. He, therefore, submits that inadvertently the prosecution launched against the petitioner in the instant case went unnoticed. Therefore, he prays that the prosecution of the petitioner may be quashed. He also submits that when an offence punishable under Section 12(1)(b) of the Act, 1967 is made out, the

¶35

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:36436 WP No. 7466 of 2020

¶36

offences under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 474 read with

¶37

Section 34 of IPC would not be attracted.

¶38

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent

¶39

No.3 submits that the petitioner was born at Mandavi on 10.02.1990 whereas the petitioner had obtained a birth certificate from the office of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) where her date of birth was shown as 10.02.1990. She contends that a person could not have been born at two places on the same day and therefore, the petitioner was clearly guilty of furnishing a fake birth certificate for the purpose of obtaining a passport. She, therefore, contends that the respondent No.3 had lodged the complaint only to protect himself against any penal action.

¶40

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand contended that the action was initiated against the petitioner based on the complaint lodged by respondent No.3.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC:36436 WP No. 7466 of 2020

¶43

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the

¶44

other hand contended that the prosecution of the petitioner was initiated based on the complaint lodged by the respondent No.3 and a charge sheet was filed on the assumption that the petitioner had obtained a fake birth certificate showing that she was born in Bengaluru. He, therefore, submits that there is a case for prosecution of the petitioner for the offences mentioned above.

¶45

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶46

There is no dispute that the petitioner was given in marriage to respondent No.3 on 08.07.2010 and that time she held a passport. It is evident from the communication dated 28.11.2017 addressed by the respondent No.2 to the Police Inspector, Koramangala Police Station that the petitioner had applied for the

¶47

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:36436 WP No. 7466 of 2020

¶48

passport by submitting a birth certificate issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and 10^th standard marks card, where her date of birth was shown as 10.02.1990. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 had issued a passport. She thereafter applied for a duplicate passport claiming that the previous passport was lost by her. Accordingly, a duplicate passport was issued by the respondent No.2 on 25.04.2017. By this time, the petitioner and respondent No.3 were on a war path. There were several marital disputes between them which ultimately resulted in a petition for dissolution of marriage in M.C. No.5920/2017 before the Family Court. It appears that soon after the petitioner filed M.C No.5920/2017, the respondent No.3 had shot off a complaint to the respondent No.2 accusing the petitioner of furnishing a fake birth certificate to obtain the passport. Based upon such a complaint, respondent No.2 addressed a communication to the Police Inspector, Koramangala Police Station. Respondent No.1 - Sub-Inspector of Police took up investigation but did not seize the original birth

¶49

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:36436 WP No. 7466 of 2020

¶50

certificate stated to have been issued by the concerned officer at Mandavi. However, respondent No.1 has proceeded on the assumption that the birth certificate issued by BBMP, which was produced by the petitioner for obtaining the duplicate passport itself was fake. Therefore, there is no basis for the charge sheet filed against the petitioner alleging the commission of offence punishable under Section 12(B) of the Act, 1967. Be that as it may, the records disclose that the petitioner and the respondent No.3 have buried the hatchet by entering into a settlement before the Family Court in M.C. No.5290/2017 in terms of which both of them have parted ways. Likewise, the proceedings in C.C No.16215/2017 initiated by the petitioner against respondent No.3 and others were quashed by this Court on 23.03.2018. Therefore, having regard to the conduct of the parties and the fact that the respondent No.1 has not seized the birth certificate indicating that the petitioner was born at Mandavi, the investigation is tardy and prosecution of the petitioner would only be a wasteful exercise of time.

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:36436 WP No. 7466 of 2020

¶52

10 -

¶53

In that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioner in C.C. No.7255/2019 pending trial before the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 12(B) of the Passports Act, 1967 is quashed.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

SMA

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Nikeata Jha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikeata Jha v. the 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

Sri. N. Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Keshava Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Excel Dwelling India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Presidency School Vs Government of Karnataka

Smt Bharathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.P.Mohan Vs the State of Karnataka