Allowed

Smt. Anasuya S Shahapur v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2024WP/36908/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR arising from a private complaint by the former husband alleging they tried to obtain his bank details using a GPA after their divorce. The court held no offence of cheating was made out since no details were furnished and no pecuniary harm resulted, quashed the FIR, with petitioner undertaking not to use the GPA.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.211/2018 and FIR dated 20.04.2018 (Annexure-C) against petitioners quashed; pending applications dismissed.

Smt. Anasuya S Shahapur Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.36908 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. ANASUYA S. SHAHAPUR W/O LATE PREMKUMAR S HALAGATTI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.41, 4^TH CROSS 1^ST FLOOR, TELECOM LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR PIPELINE ROAD BENGALURU-560 023

¶8

SMT.HEMA P. HALAGATTI D/O LATE PREMKUMAR S HALAGATTI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.3585, MONROE ST Digitally signed APT NO.395, SANTA CLARA, by ALBHAGYA CALIFORNIA, USA Location: HIGH COURT OF PETITIONER NO.2 IS REPRESENTED KARNATAKA

¶9

PETITIONER NO.2 IS REPRESENTED BY PETITIONER NO.1 THE GPA HOLDER OF PETITIONER NO.2 (MOTHER OF THE PETITIONER NO.2)

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.SHARATH GOWDA G B, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560040 REPRESENTED BY SPP

¶16

SRI.NAGENDRA M S/O LATE D.MANICKAM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.3332, 3^RD CROSS 6^TH MAIN, RPC LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE HAMPINAGAR BENGALURU-40

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.H.SHANTI BHUSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH 482 OF CRPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CRIME NO.211/2018 (PCR.NO.2994/2018 PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 468 AND 417 OF I.P.C. ON THE FILE OF 24^TH ACMM COURT, NRUPATHUGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY AND QUASH THE FIR FILED ON 20.04.2018 AS AGAINST THE PETITONERS I.E. ANNEXURE-C TO SERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AS OTHERWISE IRREPARABLE INJURY WILL BE CAUSED TO THE PETITIONERS AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners have filed this captioned writ petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.211/2018 (PCR No.2994/2018) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 417 of IPC on the file of 24^th ACMM Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City and quash the FIR filed on 20.04.2018 against the petitioners i.e., Annexure-C.

¶24

Facts leading to the case are as under;

¶25

Marriage of petitioner No.2 with respondent No.2

¶26

– Complainant was solemnized in 2005 and in the wedlock, petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 are blessed with one female child. Respondent No.2 – Complainant has filed a private complaint in PCR No.2994/2018 alleging that petitioner No.2 having received community property in terms of the dissolution of the marriage recorded before the Superior Court of California Country of Santa Clara has

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶29

made an attempt to misuse the General Power of Attorney executed by respondent No.2 in favour of petitioner No.2 –

¶30

Accused No.2. Respondent No.2 has further alleged in the complaint that on 29.01.2018, petitioner No.1 approached State Bank of India with whom respondent No.2 – Complainant holds an account and tried to secure bank details on the strength of GPA executed by respondent No.2. It is further alleged in the complaint that the Manager of the State Bank of India has brought to the notice of respondent No.2 – Complainant and at his request, the Manager has declined to furnish bank details to petitioner No.2.

¶31

The private complaint is lodged alleging that

¶32

the petitioners have committed offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465 and 468 of Indian Penal Code and hence, a request is made to the jurisdictional Magistrate to refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶35

The jurisdictional Magistrate on receipt of complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C has exercised jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the matter is referred to the jurisdictional police station to investigate the matter. Pursuant to the reference under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, the Investigation Officer has registered a crime in Crime No.211/2018.

¶36

The petitioners, who were summoned to the

¶37

Police Station for investigation and on verification, found that crime is registered against the petitioners. Pursuant to the registration of the complaint with the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 Cr.P.C, the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

¶38

Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶39

petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Complainant and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 – State. Perused the records.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶42

Before I proceed further, it would be useful for this Court to take cognizance of para No.10 of the complaint and the same is extracted, which reads as under;

¶43

“10. The complainant submits that, the 2^nd accused in spite of receiving sufficient amount over settlement has repeatedly approached the all financial intuitions with regard to transactions however it was resisted by the officials and informed to me, such being so on 29.01.2018 the 1^st accused has approached the complainants banker, Manager, State Bank of India, RPC Layout Branch, Bengaluru, along with a General Power of Attorney, stating that the complainant has issued the same and has sought the account statement and also has sought to operate the said account. The Manager of the said Bank, has intimated to the complaint via e-mail with regard to the 1^st accused having approached, as such the complainant has replied that he has not authorized anybody on behalf of him to operate the account in any manner and he has also not issued any General Power of Attorney

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶45

to anybody with any regard. The Manager of the SBI, has instructed me that 1^st accused has made repeated request with regard to operation of the complainants account and also advised the complainant to lodge a complaint with regard to the same.”

¶46

On examining materials on record, this Court is of the view that there is a dispute pending between petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 – Complainant before Superior Court of California, Country of Santa Clara. Respondent No.2 – Complainant claims that the marriage is dissolved and petitioner No.2 has received community property.

¶47

Respondent No.2 – husband has resisted captioned writ petition on the ground that marriage is dissolved and all the claims are settled. Petitioner No.1, who is the mother of petitioner No.2, has tried to cheat respondent No.2 – complainant by securing Bank details.

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶49

Having taken cognizance of the allegations

¶50

made in para No.10 of the complaint and having regard to the fact that the cases are still pending before the Superior Court of California, Country of Santa Clara, this Court needs to examine as to whether an offence is made out against the petitioners.

¶51

On examining the records, this Court needs

¶52

to examine as to whether the entire allegations made in the complaint, even if accepted, an offence is made out under Sections 417, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC.

¶53

My answer is emphatically no.

¶54

Based on the General Power of Attorney,

¶55

petitioner No.2 – wife has tried to secure Bank details of respondent No.2 – Complainant. A mere request is made by petitioner Nos.1 and 2 to the SBI Bank Manager to

¶56

¶57

NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶58

furnish bank details will not in itself constitute an offence

¶59

under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 417 of IPC.

¶60

On query to the learned counsel appearing

¶61

for respondent No.2 as to whether the respondent No.2husband has revoked GPA in accordance with law, he fairly conceded that GPA is not revoked. Though marriage between petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 – Complainant is dissolved at the intervention of Superior

¶62

Court of California, Country of Santa Clara, the materials placed on record by the accused gives an indication that lis between husband and wife is not given a quietus and there are further claims made by petitioner No.2 – wife against respondent No.2 – complainant. It is in this background, it seems that petitioner No.2 – wife has tried to secure Bank details.

¶63

Though learned counsel appearing for

¶64

respondent No.2 – Complainant has vehemently argued and has contended that Bank details were furnished while

¶65

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶66

dissolving the marriage between petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 – Complainant, I am not inclined to accede to the said arguments.

¶67

After a thorough examination of the facts presented, it becomes apparent that although Respondent No.2 furnished bank account details held at the State Bank of India, an attempt is by Petitioner No.2- wife to secure the account statement of Respondent No.2 presumably for purposes relating to ongoing legal proceedings in the United States.

¶68

It is discernible at paragraph 10 of the complaint culled out supra that although Petitioner No.2 made an endeavor to secure the account statement of Respondent No.2, the Bank Manager declined to furnish any details. Given this response, it becomes evident that no information or details were divulged, thereby precluding any actual commission of an offence. It is pertinent to note that the mere attempt to obtain the bank balance,

¶69

11 -

¶70

NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶71

without any dishonest intention or inducement, does not prima facie constitute the offence of cheating under Section 417 or Section 420 IPC. The essence of the offence of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC hinges upon dishonest inducement leading to pecuniary loss or harm suffered by the complainant. In the absence of any material demonstrating actual financial harm or deprivation suffered by the complainant as a result of petitioner No.2's purported actions, the foundational premise of the offence of cheating remains unsubstantiated.

¶72

Moreover, even if the allegations against

¶73

petitioner No.2 are accepted in their entirety, there exists a palpable absence of any material indicating fraudulent intent or deceitful inducement. While there is an attempt by the first accused to access the complainant's account statement/balance under the guise of authority conferred by a GPA, the mere presentation of a GPA, without prima facie materials of coercion, misrepresentation, or other

¶74

12 -

¶75

NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶76

fraudulent machinations, does not suffice to establish the requisite mens rea essential for a conviction under Sections 417 and 420 of the IPC.

¶77

Therefore, having regard to the fact that the

¶78

litigations are pending between petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 – complainant and the fact that petitioner No.2 – wife and respondent No.2 – Complainant are permanently residing at the United States of America, the filing of the complaint by the husband and pending litigation between spouses at United States of America would only lead to hardship to both parties.

¶79

As stated supra, even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted in entirety, the materials on record will not lead to conviction. The chances of conviction being absolutely bleak, no purpose would be served if proceedings are permitted to continue against

¶80

the petitioners herein. Therefore, to prevent the abuse of process and injustice to the petitioners, this Court is of the

¶81

13 -

¶82

NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶83

view that this is a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶84

During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.2 made a statement that his client will not make use of GPA executed by respondent No.2 henceforth. Aligning with the statement made on the previous date, respondent No.2 has sworn an affidavit and the same is filed before this Court. Taking cognizance of the said affidavit, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶85

ORDER

¶86

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶87

(ii) The proceedings pending in Crime No.211/2018 (PCR No.2994/ 2018) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 417 of IPC on the file of 24^th ACMM Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru city and the FIR filed on 20.04.2018 against

¶88

14 -

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:11193 WP No. 36908 of 2018

¶90

the petitioners as per Annexure – C are hereby quashed.

¶91

(iii) Pending applications, if any,

are also dismissed.

Sd/JUDGE

NBM

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Smt. Anasuya S Shahapur v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Anasuya S Shahapur 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

Mr K M Lingaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sreeramu v Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Basavaraju B C Vs Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha

Rural High School Committee (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr N D Veeranna Gowda Vs the Secretary

Dr.a.Murugeppa Vs State of Karnataka