Allowed

Shri Rakesh Shyamarao Bhajanti v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2024CRL.P/100468/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed an FIR alleging cheating, fraud, and insult. The Court held that a promise to marry and subsequent refusal does not constitute cheating under IPC Sections 417 or 420, and no ingredient of Section 504 IPC was made out.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Cr.No.147/2022 registered by Sankeshwar Police is quashed; pending IAs are disposed of.

Shri Rakesh Shyamarao Bhajanti Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9303 CRL.P No. 100468 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100468 OF 2023 (482)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHRI RAKESH SHYAMARAO BHAJANTRI AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC. GOVT. SERVICE-EXCISE SUB INSPECTOR, N/OF KOHALLI, TALUK: ATHANI BUT PRESENTLY WORKING AND RESIDING AT NO.79/A 1ST A MAIN, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA (SHANKESWAR POLICE STATION) BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF ADVOCATE GENERAL HIGH COURT PREMISES, DHARWAD-560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MS. ARADHANA D/O. ANIL KUMAR AMMINBHAVI AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, SHIVABASAVANAGAR, NIDASOSHI ROAD, AT. SANKESWAR-591313, TALUK: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAVI.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI MADANGOUDA N. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST HIM IN SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.147/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 420 AND 504 IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREIN TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW/COURT AND TO SECURE AND ETC.

¶18

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

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9303 CRL.P No. 100468 of 2023

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 defacto complainant.

¶22

The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered against him in Cr.No.147/2022 of Sankeshwar Police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 504 IPC.

¶23

Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as under:-

¶24

The petitioner is a native of Kohalli in Athani Tanluk and he was selected as Civil Police constable and was working at Bharathi Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru. He joined the duty on 22.02.2016 and was residing at Police quarters, Bengaluru East. Later, he was selected as Armed Reserved Sub Inspector (CAR/DAR) vide order dated 06.07.2020 and reported to duty on 05.12.2020 at Belagavi. During this time, the petitioner had love affair with respondent No.2 and he used to call her and chat with her on Whatsapp. The petitioner-accused assured the defacto complainant to marry her, but subsequently, he refused her on one or other pretext contending that he would marrying another girl and he also told her not to call him repeatedly since his family members are not giving consent for his marriage with her and also threatened her with dire consequences.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9303 CRL.P No. 100468 of 2023

¶26

Hence, she lodges complaint. Taking exception to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the commission of offences alleged against the petitioner. In the absence of any allegation and any corroborative material, registration of FIR against the petitioner by the respondent police is impermissible. It is contended that the allegation against the petitioner/accused that he promised to marry the defacto complainant is not an inducement and the offence of cheating is not attracted. In support of his submission, he placed reliance on an order of coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.233/2020 which was disposed of 24.02.2020 and W.P.No.104884/2021 disposed of on 11.04.2022.

¶28

On the other hand, learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2-defacto complainant submits that the contents of FIR and complaint clearly disclose commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioner and therefore they sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶29

The allegations made in the complaint and FIR is that the petitioner-accused came in contact with the defacto complainant over phone and both were in love, the petitioner promised to marry the first informant. Frequently, he used to call her on the mobile, shared

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9303 CRL.P No. 100468 of 2023

¶31

messages with her on Whatsapp and he used to take the informant out.

¶32

To constitute an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC, there must be allegation that from the inception, the intention of the accused was to cheat the defacto complainant. Mere promise to marry is not an inducement and offence of cheating is not attracted.

¶33

To constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, the accused must deceive the defacto complainant fraudulently or dishonestly induce her to deliver any property to him or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induce the defacto complainant to do or omit to do anything which he would not do so, if he were so deceived. In the present case, the only allegation is that the petitioner refused to marry the defacto complainant. Hence, this allegation does not constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶34

To constitute an offence under Section 504 IPC, there must be intentional insult of such degree to break the public peace or commission of any other offence. In the present case, there is no allegation that the accused by using abusive language has committed any other offence or break the public peace. Hence, the FIR registered against the petitioner by the jurisdictional police for the

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9303 CRL.P No. 100468 of 2023

¶36

¶37

offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 504 IPC is without any substance.

¶38

Accordingly, I pass the following:-

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The petition is allowed.

¶41

The impugned registration of FIR in Cr.No.147/2022

¶42

of Sankeshwar Police is hereby quashed.

¶43

Pending IAs, if any, stands disposed of.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

MN/ct-vr List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Shri Rakesh Shyamarao Bhajanti v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Rakesh Shyamarao Bhajanti 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager Vs Kumari Divya D/O Mariswamy Nagur

Pamappa S/O Bangareppa Decd by Lrs Vs the Land Acquisition Officer

The General Manager, Vs Hanamant S/O Hanamappa Kamathar

Sri Manoj Pai S/O. Sri. B. H. Gurudatt Vs the State of Karnataka

Shrikanth S/O. Ranganath Malode Vs the State of Karnataka

The Divisional Manager Vs Roshanbanu W/O Babajan Navalur