Allowed

Mr Rahul Chandrashekar Bhat v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2024WP/4561/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge sheet alleging obscene video circulation and ransom demand via a UK mobile number. The court found glaring improbabilities in the prosecution timeline, no property delivered to sustain extortion, no completed offence for Section 201, and no lascivious or sexually explicit material for the IT Act offences, and quashed the entire proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr Rahul Chandrashekar Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Reserved on : 03.09.2024 Pronounced on : 28.10.2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.4561 OF 2022 (GM - RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. RAHUL CHANDRASHEKAR BHAT AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS S/O SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR BHAT OCCUPATION: BUSINESS (INDIA AND OVERSEAS) RESIDING AT NO.70 ANATHA VILLA 5^TH B MAIN ROAD NARAYANAPPA BLOCK R.T. NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI VENKATESH P.DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

¶13

BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

2 . MR.NISHANTH S/O S.T.SOMASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 94/1A 9^TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 080.

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.3446 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.16/2021 ARRAINGING THE PRESENT PETITIONER AS ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 67, 66(C), 67(A) OF IT ACT AND SEC.384 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1^ST ADDITIONAL CMM COURT AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.09.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶19

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶21

CAV ORDER

¶22

The petitioner/accused No.1 is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. No. 3446 of 2022 arising out of crime in Crime No.16 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 201, 384 and 511 of the IPC and Sections 66C, 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘the Act’ for short) .

¶23

Heard Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Sandeep Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶24

Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

¶25

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant by name Nishanth, son

¶26

of then Minister for Cooperation Sri. S.T. Somashekar. It is the allegation that his father’s Personal Assistant received some obscene videos and photographs as if showing that the complainant

¶27

¶28

was in the company of some women and had been sent the same from some unknown mobile number on 25-12-2021 at about 4.30 p.m. through whatsapp and then later all those unknown persons are said to have demanded money as ransom, failing which they would leak the videos. Based upon this, a complaint comes to be registered and the complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.16 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences. The investigation was transferred to the City Crime Branch and the City Crime Branch (‘CCB’ for short) conducts investigation and files a final report before the concerned Court.

¶29

The petitioner is said to be the accused who has generated

¶30

the video and sent to the whatsapp number of the Personal Assistant of the father of the complainant. The issue got media attention and the petitioner was made subject to a lookout circular and was not permitted to travel outside the shores of the nation. After filing of the final report before the concerned Court, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition seeking quashment of entire proceedings on plethora of grounds.

¶31

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai would contend that the CCB is not declared as a Police Station in terms of Section 2(s) of the Cr.P.C. It is his further submission that mere declaration in a notification that above the rank of Inspector will have the same powers as Officer incharge of the Police Station would not be sufficient to clothe the Officers of the CCB to investigate and file a final report. He would submit that a perusal at the final report would clearly indicate that the investigation was done by an Officer of the Rank of Inspector and, therefore, the entire proceedings i.e., the investigation or the final report is vitiated being contrary to Sections 156 and 173 of the Cr.P.C. On the facts of the case, the learned counsel would submit that the complaint alleges that the complainant’s father’s Personal Assistant received messages from a particular mobile number circulating obscene photographs, which would tarnish the image of the father of the complainant.

¶33

The statement of one Shivaleela is recorded. She in her statement indicates that the sim that was used was a UK sim, and

¶34

¶35

was allegedly given to one Rakesh on 25-12-2021, and Rakesh had given it to the petitioner. If that be so, one Bhanu Prakash, receiving a call or a ransom message at 4.30 p.m. on 25-12-2021 from a UK number would prove the entire episode to be false, as the statements are completely contradictory. On 27-12-2021 further statement is recorded in which it is the claim of the complainant that fake video and obscene photographs were generated showing the complainant with some lady in a semi-nude condition among others. The learned counsel would contend that those videos and photographs are not part of the charge sheet. The seizure of 39 seconds video allegedly downloaded from the Personal Assistant of the father of the complainant is the news item. The video does not contain any sexually explicit act, is very clear from the panchanama.

¶36

The learned counsel would further contend that the call details record (CDR) taken from UK number reflects an outgoing call on 26-12-2021 at 11.03 p.m. to one Satish Patil of Bijapur. It is not investigated into. The two statements recorded are of Kum. Meghana and Kum.Roohika who gave statements that they had

¶37

¶38

uploaded those very videos on their Instagram account. It was neither sexually explicit nor provocative. There is no Forensic Science Laboratory report or any evidence to indicate that clippings which were projected in the news channels were edited by the petitioner. In the entire evidence there is no semi nude or explicit photographs at all. The photographs that are circulated are available on the Instagram account of the two women. The learned counsel would submit that Section 384 of the IPC does not get attracted in the case at hand, as there is no property or valuable security delivered to the petitioner. The learned counsel would further contend that no offence under Section 201 of the IPC or any offence under the Act are even attracted in the case at hand. He would seek to place reliance on several judgments to buttress his submissions.

¶39

Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Sandeep Patil appearing for the complainant would seek to refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in contending that the petitioner was responsible for dropping of the videos into the whatsapp number of the Personal Assistant of the father of the complainant

¶40

¶41

and had also sent a message with regard to extortion of money. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. Therefore, he would contend that it is a matter of trial. He would further submit that the complainant and the person who was seen in the video, a lady are now engaged and are going to get married and want to live a peaceful life. He would leave the decision to the Court.

¶42

The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in contending that the State Government has issued a notification declaring the CCB to be a Police Station. The Notification may have come about after the investigation, but nonetheless the notification is now in place. On merit of the matter, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the Police after investigation have filed the charge sheet. Since the charge sheet is now filed, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown trial. Therefore, the petition requires to be dismissed permitting the trial to conclude.

¶43

¶44

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶45

The afore-narrated facts, the link in the chain of events are a matter of record. The basis in the link appears to be wanting. Since the entire issue is triggered from the registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:

¶46

“ಇಂದ:

¶47

��ೕ.��ಾಂತ �� ಎ�.�.�ೋಮ�ೇಖ�, ವಯಸು� 26 ವಷ� �ಾಸ ನಂ 94/1ಎ, 9!ೇ "ಾ��, ಆ�.ಎಂ.$ ಎ%�&ೆನ��, ಸ'ಾ�ವನಗರ, *ೆಂಗಳ,ರು – 560 080 zÀÆgÀªÁtÂ ¸ÀASÉå 080-23613444

¶48

ರವ-.ೆ :

¶49

/0ೕ� ಇ��1ೆಕ3� �ೈಬ� "ೆ6ಂ /0ೕ� 7ಾ8ೆ 9.ಎ.ಆ�. ದ:ಣ ಆಡು.ೋ= *ೆಂಗಳ,ರು ನಗರ.

¶50

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

¶51

¶52

$ಷಯ: ?ಾ@ೋ ಅಪ-Cತ ದುಷDE�ಗಳF ಸಂಚು ರೂH9 £ÀPÀ° $=IೕಗಳನುJ ¸ÀÈ¶Ö¹ �ಾKಾLಕ MಾಲOಾಣದ0P ಹ- �ಡುವR'ಾS ಹಣ"ಾDS *ೇ="ೆ ಇಟು3 *ೆದ-ಸುUVರುವವರ WೕXೆ "ಾನೂನು -ೕU PÀæಮ "ೈ.ೊಳYಲು "ೋ-.

¶53

¶54

WೕಲDಂಡ $ಷಯ"ೆD ಸಂಬಂZ9ದಂOೆ !ಾನು WೕXೆ U[9ದ $\ಾಸದ0P ನಮ] ಕುಟುಂಬ'ೊಂ^.ೆ �ಾಸ�ಾSರುOೆVೕ!ೆ . ನಮ] ತಂ'ೆಯವ@ಾದ ��ೕ ಎ�.�.�ೋಮ�ೇಖ�, ಯಶವಂತಪRರ $`ಾನಸaಾ bೇತ�ದ �ಾಸಕರು cಾಗೂ .ೌರ�ಾ�eತ ಕ!ಾ�ಟಕ @ಾಜg ಸ"ಾ�ರದ ಸಹ"ಾರ hಾOೆ ಸCವ@ಾSರುOಾV@ೆ . !ಾನು ಸಹ @ಾಜiೕಯ�ಾS �.Mೆ .H ಪj^ಂದ ಗುರುU9"ೊಂಡು ಪj ಸಂಘಟ!ೆಯ0P "ೆಲಸವನುJ KಾಡುOಾV ಬಂ^ರುOೆVೕ!ೆ .

¶55

ನನJ ಮತುV ನಮ] ತಂ'ೆಯವರ @ಾಜiೕಯದ ಏ[.ೆಯನುJ ಸmಸ'ೆ , ನಮ] cೆಸ-.ೆ ಚುgU ತರಲು cಾಗೂ @ಾಜiೕಯ�ಾS ನಮ]ನುJ ಮುSಸೇ"ೆಂಬ ದುರು'ೆnೕಶ^ಂದ "ೆಲವR ದುಷDE�ಗಳF ಸಂಚು ರೂH9, ನಮ]ನುJ !ೇರ�ಾS ದೃp3 Kಾ="ೊಂಡು !ಾನು, ?ಾ@ೋ ಮm\ೆಯ MೊOೆಯ0PರುವಂOೆ ಆ�Pೕಲ�ಾದ ನಕ0 $=Iೕ ದೃ�ಾgವ[ಗಳನುJ ಮತುV /ೕ&ೋಗಳನುJ ಸೃp3 Kಾ= ಅಪ-Cತ ವgiV qೈr ನಂ:447895648639 ¤AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25/12/2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 4- 30 WÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj $=Iೕ ದೃ�ಾgವ[ಗಳನುJ ºÁUÀÆ /ೕ&ೋಗಳನುJ ನನJ ತಂ'ೆಯವರ ಪಸ�ನr �ೆ"ೆ�ಟ-?ಾದ ��ೕ��ಾಸ.ೌಡ ಮತುV ಅಪVಸcಾಯಕ@ಾದ ��ೕ.aಾನುಪ�"ಾs ರವರ qೈr/ೕ� ನಂಬ�ಗಳ �ಾg&ಾgt.ೆ ಪ'ೇ ಪ'ೇ Wೕ�ೆu ಗಳನುJ ಕಳFm9, OಾವR "ೇ[ದಷು3 ಹಣವನುJ "ೊಡೇ"ೆಂದು ಹಣ"ಾDS *ೇ="ೆ ಇಟು3 *ೆದ-9 ಹಣವನುJ �ೕಡ^ದn0P ಈ ಆ�Pೕಲ $=Iೕದ ದೃ�ಾgವ[ಗಳF ಮತುV /ೕ&ೋಗಳನುJ �ಾKಾLಕ Mಾಲದ0P ಮತುV Kಾದgಮಗ[.ೆ ಹ-ದು�ಡುವR'ಾS ಮತುV ನನJ cಾಗೂ ನಮ] ತಂ'ೆಯವರ @ಾಜiೕಯ ಭ$ಷgವನುJ ಮುSಸುವR'ಾS, �ಾKಾLಕ MಾಲOಾಣದ0P, Kಾಧgಮಗ[.ೆ ಹ- �ಡುವR'ಾS ೆದ-"ೆ cಾiರುOಾ@ೆ . ಸದ- ಸಂCನ mಂ'ೆ ತುಂಾ ಪ�aಾವ�ಾ0?ಾSರುವಂತಹ ಪದgಗಳF aಾS?ಾSರುವ �ಾಧgvÉ ಇರುOೆV.

¶56

ಆದn-ಂದ ನನJ cಾಗೂ ನಮ] ತಂ'ೆಯವರ @ಾಜiೕಯದ ೆಳವz.ೆಯನುJ ಸmಸ'ೆ ಇರುವಂತಹ "ೆಲವR ದುಷDE�ಗಳF, ನಮ.ೆ Oೊಂದ@ೆ �ೕಡೇ"ೆಂಬ ದುರು'ೆnೕಶ^ಂದ ಈ -ೕU ಸಂಚು ರೂH9, !ಾನು ?ಾ@ೋ ಮm\ೆಯ MೊOೆಯ0PರುವಂOೆ ನಕ0 $=Iೕ ಮತುV /ೕ&ೋಗಳನುJ ಸೃp3 Kಾ= ಹಣ"ಾDS ಒOಾV|9, $=IೕವನುJ �ಾKಾLಕ MಾಲOಾಣದ0P ಹ-ದು �ಡುವR'ಾS ೆದ-"ೆಯನುJ cಾiದುn, ಸದ- ಆ�ಾEಗಳ $ರುದn "ಾನೂನು -ೕOಾg ಕ�ಮ "ೈ.ೊಳYೇ"ೆಂದು "ೋರುOೆVೕ!ೆ .

¶57

¶58

ತಮ] $�ಾe¹ ¸À»/(��ಾಂತ)”

¶59

The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.16 of 2021. The Police conduct investigation and file a final report. Column No.7 of the final report reads as follows:

¶60

“"ಾಲಂ ನಂ 4 ರ0P ನಮೂದು Kಾ=ರುವ ಆ@ೋHಯು ^!ಾಂಕ 25-12-2021 ರಂದು ಸಂMೆ 07-18 ಗಂ&ೆ ಸಮಯದ0P �ಾ€�ಆ• +447895648639 £ÀA§j¤AzÀ �ಾ:-2 ರವರ �ಾ€�ಆt qೈr ನಂಬ� 8722445511 �ಾ:-1, �ಾ:-15 ಮತುV �ಾ:-16 ರವರ ‚ೕ&ೊ cಾಗೂ $=Iೕ MೊOೆಯ0Pರುವ ಒಂದು $=IೕವನುJ ಕಳFm9 “ಇದು "ೇವಲ &ೆ6ಲ� ಅƒೆ3ೕ !ಾ\ೆ ಸಂ„ೆ �ೆ…ಷr ಎXಾP ಇXೆ"ಾ†�% Eೕ=?ಾ cಾಗೂ �ೋ�ಯr Eೕ=?ಾಗಳ0P ‡r �ೆ%� $=Iೕ �ೈರr ಅಗ0'ೆ " ಎಂದು W�ೆu ಕಳFm9ರುOಾV!ೆ . �ಾ:-2 ರವರು – EAVèÃ¶£À°è Who's this, call JAzÀÄ W�ೆu Kಾ=ದುn, ನಂತರ ಸದ- �ಾ€�ಆ• qೈr �ಂದ?ಾವR'ೇ ಉತVರ ಬಂ^ರುವR^ಲP. ಅ'ೇ ^ನ @ಾU� 9-30 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ �ಾ€�ಆt +447895648639 ನಂಬ� �ಂದ �ಾ:-2 ಮತುV �ಾ:-3 ರವರುಗ[.ೆ �ಾ€� ಆ• W�ೆuಗಳF ಪ'ೇ ಪ'ೇ ಕಳFm9ದುn cಾಗೂ ಹಣ"ಾDS *ೇ="ೆ ಇಟು3 ಇXೆ"ಾ†�% Eೕ=?ಾ cಾಗೂ �ೋ�ಯr Eೕ=?ಾಗಳ0P �ೆ%� $=IೕವನುJ cಾಕುವR'ಾS *ೆದ-"ೆ W�ೆu ಗಳನುJ ಕಳFm9ರುOಾV!ೆ .

¶61

�ಾ:-2 ರವರು @ಾU� 9-47 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ �ಾ€� ಆ• qೈr +447895648639 ನಂಬ�UÉ ಅªÀರ �ಾ€�ಆt qೈr ನಂಬ� 8722445511 �ಂದ "ಾr Kಾ=ದುn ಆ@ೋHಯು "ಾrನುJ -Mೆ%3 Kಾ=ರುOಾV!ೆ .

¶62

^!ಾಂಕ 26-12-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 6-02 ¤«ÄµÀ¢AzÀ ©.n«AiÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¢Ý ªÁ»¤AiÀÄ°è ಪ��ಾರ�ಾದ ಬ.ೆ‰ /ೕ&ೋ ಮತುV $=Iೕ iPt ಮತುV 3 "ೋ� ಹಣ "ೊಡೇ"ೆಂದು W�ೇu Kಾ=ದುn �ಾ:-2 ರವರು !ೋ=ದ "ೆಲ�ೇ �ೆ"ೆಂŠಗಳ0P +447895648639 ನಂಬ� �ಂದ ಕಳFm9ದn /ೕ&ೋ ಮತುV $=Iೕ iPt ಅನುJ ಆ@ೋHಯು =0ೕ€ ‹ಾ� ಎವ-ªÀ� Kಾ=ರುOಾV!ೆ . ನಂತರ �ಾ:-2 ರವರು ತಮ] qೈr ನಂಬ� 8722445511 �ಂದ ಸಂMೆ 6-14 ಗಂ&ೆ cಾಗೂ 6-18 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ +447895648639 ನಂಬgï.ೆ �ಾ€� ಆt "ಾr Kಾ=ದುn �ಾ:-2 ರವರ "ಾr ಅನುJ ಆ@ೋHಯು -Mೆ%3 Kಾ=ರುOಾV!ೆ .

¶63

¶64

£ÀAvÀgÀ +447895648639 £ÀA§gï ¤AzÀ ಪ'ೇ ಪ'ೇ ಬಂದಂತಹ �ಾ€�ಆt W�ೆuಗಳನುJ �ಾ:-2 ಮತುV �ಾ:-3 ರವರು ತಮ] qೈr /ೕ�ನ0P ¹ÌçÃ£ï �ಾ€ |Kಾ="ೊಂಡು ತಮ] qೈrನ0P ಇಟು3"ೊಂ=ದುn, ನಂತರ ಆ ¹ÌçÃ£ï �ಾ€ ಗಳನುJ 1ೆ� „ೆ6Œ.ೆ ವ.ಾ�m9 �ಾ:-1 ರವ-.ೆ "ೊ�3ದುn �ಾ:-1 ರವರು ^!ಾಂಕ 27-12-2021 ರಂದು ಮುಂ^ನ ತ�hೆ.ಾS ಸದ- 1ೆ� „ೈŒ ಅನುJ �ಾ:-4 ಮತುV �ಾ:-5 ರವರ ಸಮjಮ cಾಜರು ಪ=9ದನುJ |ಅKಾನತುV ಪ=9 ಮುಂ^ನ ತ�hೆ.ಾS ಎ•.ಎ�.ಎr ತ•ರವ-.ೆ ಕಳFm9ರುತV'ೆ .

¶65

^!ಾಂಕ 28-12-2021 ರಂದು �ಾ:-14 ರವರನುJ +447895648639 ನಂಬ�ನ ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ8ೆ KಾಡXಾS +447895648639 ನಂಬ� ಅನುJ �ಾ:-13 ರವರು ಬಳಸುUVರುವR'ಾS U[9ದುn �ಾ:-13 ರವರು ಯು."ೆ ಯ0P �ಾgಸಂಗ KಾಡುUVದುn, �ಾ:-13 ರವರನುJ /ೕ� ಮುhಾಂತರ $Žಾರ8ೆ KಾಡXಾS �ಾ:-6 ರವರು ಯು."ೆ 9• ೇ"ೆಂದು "ೇ[ದ Wೕ@ೆ.ೆ �ಾ:- 13 ರವರು +447895648639 qೈr £ÀA§gÀ C£ÀÄß ^!ಾಂಕ 25-12-2021 ರಂದು Oೆ.ೆದು"ೊಂಡು �ಾ:-6 ರವ-.ೆ +447895648639 q*ೈr ನಂ§gïನುJ cಾಗೂ �ಾ€� ಆ• ಆi3�ೇಷ� ಓ�HಯನುJ �ಾ€� ಆ• ಮುhಾಂತರ �ಾ:-6 ರವ-.ೆ �ೕ=ರುವR'ಾS U[9ರುOಾV@ೆ .

¶66

^!ಾಂಕ 29-12-2021 ರಂದು �ಾ:-6 ರವರನುJ $Žಾರ8ೆ.ೆ ಕ@ೆತಂದು $Žಾರ8ೆ KಾಡXಾS �ಾ:-13 ರವ-ಂದ ಪ„ೆದು"ೊಂ=ದn +447895648639 q*ೈr ನಂಬ� ಮತುV �ಾ€� ಆ• ಆi3�ೇಷ� ಓ�HಯನುJ �ಾ€� ಆ• ಮುhಾಂತರ ಆ@ೋH?ಾದ @ಾಹುr ಚಂದ��ೇಖ� ¨sÀ€ ಈತ�.ೆ �ೕ=ರುವR'ಾS cೇ["ೆಯನುJ �ೕ=ದುn cಾಗೂ ಆ@ೋHಯು ^!ಾಂಕ 27-12-2021 ರಂದು �ಾJt Žಾ€ "ಾr Kಾ= ನನJ cೆಸರನುJ ?ಾ-ಗೂ ºÉÃ¼À¨ÉÃqÁ ¨ÉÃgÉ ?ಾ@ೋ cೇಸರನುJ cೇಳF ಎಂಬ ಸಂaಾಷ8ೆಯನುJ �ಾ:-6 ರವರು @ೇ"ಾqïð ªÀiÁrzÀÝ£ÀÄß 65 © ಇಂ=ಯ�� ಎ$„ೆ�� ಆPïÖ ಮೂಲಕ �ಾ:-9 ಮತುV �ಾ:-10 ರವರ ಸಮ%ಷಮ ಅKಾನತುV ಪ=9"ೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ^!ಾಂಕ 1002-2022 ರಂದು ಆ@ೋHಯ Kಾದ- ಧ‘�ಯನುJ �ಾ:-11 ಮತುV �ಾ:-12 ರವರ ಸಮjಮ Kಾದಧ‘�ಯನುJ ಪ„ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಎ•.ಎ�.ಎr ಮ=�ಾಳ ರವ-.ೆ �ಾ:-6 ರವರು �ೕ=ರುವ 1ೆ� „ೆ6Œ ಅನುJ ಆ@ೋHಯ Kಾದ- ಧ‘�ಯನುJ ಧ‘� cೋ0"ೆ.ಾS ಕಳFm9ರುOೆV. ನಂತರ ^!ಾಂಕ 14-012022 ರಂದು �ಾ:-6 ರವರು Kಾನg !ಾg?ಾZೕಶರ ಮುಂ'ೆ 164 9ಆ�H9 -Oಾg ತಮ] ಸe ಇŽಾ’ cೇ["ೆಯನುJ �ೕ=ರುOಾV@ೆ……”

¶67

The petitioner is caught in the web of crime. After the petitioner being brought into the web of crime, a panchanama is drawn

¶68

¶69

seizing the mobile phone and other materials. The panchanama assumes significance for a decision in the lis . It reads as follows:

¶70

“��ೇದ!ೆ ,

¶71

99� ಮm\ಾ ಸಂರj8ಾದಳದ0P /0ೕ� ಇ��1ೆಕ3� ಆS ಕತ�ವg �ವ�mಸುUVರುವ ಹಜ@ೇs ಎ iXೆPೕ'ಾ� ಆದ !ಾನು ಬರದು"ೊಟ3 -/ೕ€� K!ೆಂದ@ೆ ,

¶72

^!ಾಂಕ 29-12-2021

¶73

ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ]0P ��ೇ^9"ೊಳFYವR'ೇ!ೆಂದ@ೆ ^!ಾಂಕ 27-12-2021 gÀAzÀÄ »jAiÀÄ ಅZ"ಾರಗಳF Kೌ”ಕ ಆ'ೇಶದ Wೕ@ೆ.ೆ �ೈಬ� "ೆ6ಂ /0ೕ� 7ಾ8ೆ q.ಸಂhೆg 16/2021 ಕಲಂ 66(9), 67, 67(ಎ) ಐ� ಆ%3, ಮತುV 384 ಐH9 ಪ�ಕರಣದ0P ಪ–z�Kಾ ರವರನುJ $Žಾರ8ೆ Kಾ= KಾmU ಸಂಗ�m9 ಸದ- "ೇ9ನ ಆ@ೋH ಮತುV ಗುKಾ� ಅ�ಾEಗಳನುJ ಪOೆVKಾ= cಾಜರು ಪ=ಸುವಂOೆ ನನJನುJ cಾಗೂ 9ಬ—ಂ^ಯವ@ಾದ H9 12145 ಪರಶು@ಾ• ಾ¹äÃ ಮತುV H9 13048 ಸEೕ� Eಜ�ನJವ� ರವರನುJ !ೇಮಕ Kಾ=ದುn ಅದರಂOೆ !ಾವRಗಳF ^!ಾಂಕ 28-03-2021 ರಂದು �MಾಪRರ"ೆD cೋS ಪ–8ೆ�Kಾ ರವರನುJ aೇ� Kಾ= $Žಾರ8ೆ Kಾ=ದುn ಪ–z�Kಾ ರವರ qೈr ನಂಬ� 9901628263 .ೆ ಕ@ೆ ಬಂ^ದn ನಂಬ� 00447895648639 ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ8ೆ Kಾ='ಾಗ ಈ ನಂಬ� ಬ.ೆ‰ ನನ.ೆ .ೊUVXಾP ಆದ@ೆ ಇದು ಯು!ೆ&ೈŠ iಂ˜ ಡ• 'ೇಶದ ನಂಬ� ಆSರುOೆV. ಆದ@ೆ ನಮ] ಅ%ಕ �ವ0Xಾ ರವರು $'ಾgaಾgಸ"ಾDS ಯು!ೆ&ೈŠ iಂ˜ ಡ• ನಂಬ� 'ೇಶದ0P ಉಪIೕSಸುUVದn q*ೈr ನಂಬ� 00447717278928 ಆSರುOೆV ಎಂದು U[9ದಳF. ನಂತರ �ವ0ೕXಾ ರವ-.ೆ ದೂರ�ಾz ಮುhಾಂತರ ಕ@ೆ Kಾ= ನಂಬ� 00447895648639 ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ8ೆ Kಾ='ಾಗ ಈ ನಂಬ� ನಮ] �MಾಪRರ ಊ-ನ *ಾrಯ �ೆJೕmತ!ಾದ @ಾ"ೇs ಎಂಬವ�.ೆ ಆ� Xೈ� ಮುhಾಂತರ ನಂಬ� 00447895648639 ಮತುV ಓ�HಯನುJ @ಾ"ೇಶ�.ೆ �ಾ€� ಆ• ಮುhಾಂತರ �ೕ='ಾnS U[9ದರು. ನಂತರ @ಾ"ೇs ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ8ೆ Kಾ='ಾಗ �ವ0Xಾ ರವರು @ಾ"ೇs /ೕ� ನಂಬ� 7575999777 ಅನುJ �ೕ=ದುn @ಾ"ೇs ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ8ೆ Kಾ='ಾಗ ಆತನ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸWೕತ ಮcಾ@ಾಷ†ದ ಾಂೆ cೋSರುವR'ಾS $ಷಯ U[ದು ಬಂ^ರುOೆV. ನಂತರ @ಾ"ೇs ಬ.ೆ‰ KಾmU ಸಂಗ�m9'ಾಗ @ಾ"ೇs ಾಂೆ |ಂದ ಮcಾ@ಾಷ†ದ ಪ–!ಾ.ೆ ಬಂದು �ಾಸ�ಾSರುವR'ಾS U[ದು ಬಂ^ರುತV'ೆ .

¶74

^!ಾಂಕ 29-12-2021 ರಂದು !ಾವRಗಳF ಮcಾ@ಾಷ†ದ ಪ–!ಾ.ೆ cೋS ಅ0P @ಾ"ೇs ©£ï C¤¯ï PÀÄªÀiÁgï CtÚ¥Àà£ÀªÀgï, ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì 24 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À £ÀA.91/1, ®QëöäÃ ¤ªÁ¸ï, gÀd¥ÀÆvï UÀ°è, EAr gÀ¸ÉÛ, ©eÁ¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀA§gï 00447895648639 ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ8ೆ KಾಡXಾS ಸದ- ನಂಬರನುJ !ಾನು �ವ0Xಾ ಕ„ೆ|ಂದ ನಂಬ� ಮತುV ಓ�HಯನುJ

¶75

¶76

ಪ„ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ನನ.ೆ ಯು."ೆ ಯ0P ಪ-ಚಯ�ಾSದುn @ಾಹುr ಚಂದ��ೇಖ� ಭ€ ಎಂಬುವನು ನನ.ೆ �ಸ!ೆ� Kಾಡಲು ಯು."ೆ ನಂಬ� *ೇ"ೆಂದು "ೇ[ದn ಆದ "ಾರಣ !ಾನು �ವ0Xಾ ಕ„ೆ|ಂದ ನಂಬ� ನಂಬ� 00447895648639 ಮತುV ಓ�H ನಂಬ� 899-876 ಅನುJ ಪ„ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ನನ.ೆ "ೊ�3ರುOಾV@ೆ .

¶77

�ವ0Xಾ ಕ„ೆ|ಂದ ಪ„ೆದು"ೊಂಡ ನಂಬ� 00117895648639 ಮತುV ಓ�9 ನಂಬ� 899876 ಅನುJ @ಾಹುr ಭ€ qೈr ನಂಬ� 9449016666 .ೆ �ಾ€� ಆ• ಮುhಾಂತರ ಕಳFm9 "ೊ�3ರುOೆVೕ!ೆ . ಅ'ಾದ ನಂತರ ಆ ನಂಬ� Oೆ.ೆದು"ೊಂಡು @ಾಹುr ಭ€ ಏನು Kಾ=ದ ಎಂದು ನನ.ೆ U[^ರುವR^ಲP. ಇದಲP'ೆ @ಾಹುr ಭ€ ಬ[ ಆತನ ಉಪIೕSಸುUVದn qೈr ನಂಬ�ಗಳF 9341399999, 9342777777, 93415555555 ಆSರುOೆV. @ಾಹುr ಭ€ $\ಾ¸Àದ ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ Kಾ='ಾಗ @ಾಹುr ಭ€ *ೆಂಗಳ,-ನ ಆ�.� ನಗರದ. ನಂ 70, !ಾ@ಾಯಣಪ… *ಾP%, 5!ೇ � Wೖ� ರ�ೆV, ಆ�.� ನಗರ, *ೆಂಗಳ,ರು-560032 ರ0P �ಾಸ�ಾSರುOಾV@ೆ . ಸದg @ಾಹುr ಭ€ ಎ0PರುOಾV!ೆಂದು ನನ.ೆ U[^ರುವRದಲP ಎಂದು U[9ದನು.

¶78

@ಾ"ೇಶನನುJ ಸದ- "ೇ9ನ $Žಾರ8ೆ.ಾS ^!ಾಂಕ 29-12-2021 ರಂದು ಪ–!ಾ^ಂದ ಇಂ=.ೋ ಏ� Xೈ�� $Kಾನದ0P ಮ`ಾgಹJ 2-20 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ @ಾ"ೇs ಮತುV ಅವರ ತಂ'ೆ ��ೕ ಅ�r ಕುKಾ� ಅ8ೆšಪನವ� ರವರ MೊOೆಯ0P *ೆಂಗಳ,-ನ ಸಂMೆ ಸುKಾರು 4-00 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ ಬಂ^ದುn ನಂತರ ಸಂMೆ 5-30 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ �ೈಬ� "ೆ6ಂ /0ೕ� 7ಾ8ೆಯ 7ಾ8ಾZ"ಾ-ಯವರ ಮುಂ'ೆ @ಾ"ೇs ರವರನುJ ಮುಂ^ನ $Žಾರ8ೆ.ಾS cಾಜರು ಪ=9 ವರ^ �ೕ=ರುOೆVೕ!ೆ .

¶79

¸À»/[ಹಜ@ೇs ಎ iXೆPೕ'ಾ�, H.ಐ]”

¶80

The panchanama indicates that the number has emanated from UK and the call was on 25-12-2021. It further indicates that the sim had already been transferred by one Shivaleela, to one Rakesh and from Rakesh to the petitioner. If this has happened, it is ununderstandable as to how the complainant sees the messages or calls of the Personal Assistant of his father as the sim was still in

¶81

¶82

the possession of Rakesh, as at 6.30 p.m. it is alleged to have been handed over to the petitioner. But, the photographs and the ransom call, according to the charge sheet or the complaint, comes about at 4.30 p.m. If one Rakesh or Shivaleela had the sim even at 6.30 p.m. how could the complainant see the photographs or the ransom message at 4.30 p.m. on the same day from UK number, allegedly in possession of the petitioner is again ununderstandable. Therefore, the story of the complainant would tumble down like a pack of cards, not because of suspicion, but because of glaring improbability.

¶83

The allegation is, fake and obscene videos seen. The mobile is seized; 39 seconds video is allegedly downloaded from the mobile of the Personal Assistant. This is the news item. This was spread and aired on electronic media. The video admittedly did not contain any sexual explicit act or content. The two women who are allegedly in the company of the complainant, also give their statements, that those are the videos and photographs that they have uploaded on their Instagram account. The extracts from the phone, as per the extraction report is clearly indicative of the fact

¶84

¶85

that they are found in the Instagram account. No FSL report is sought even with regard to the alleged obscene videos. There is no evidence that the petitioner has indulged in editing and sharing the videos, as the sim itself is allegedly given to the petitioner at 6.30 p.m. and the call or the videos are circulated at 4.30 p.m. Therefore, the very theory of the prosecution appears to be faulty.

¶86

I deem it appropriate to notice the other offences. The allegation is demand of ransom, as obtaining under Section 384 of the IPC which deals with extortion and reads as follows:-

¶87

“ 384. Punishment for extortion .—Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

¶88

Section 384 finds its ingredients in Section 383 of the IPC. It reads

¶89

as follows:

¶90

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

¶91

(Emphasis supplied)

¶92

¶93

Section 383 mandates that the accused should intentionally put any person in fear of any injury to that person and thereby dishonestly induces the victim to deliver any property or valuable security on the fear put by the accused. There should be delivery of property. Mere accusation of extortion will not suffice. Interpretation of Section 383 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of ISAAC ISANGA MUSUMBA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA¹ , has held as

¶94

follows:

¶95

“3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-7 and we find therefrom that the complainants have alleged that the accused persons have shown copies of international warrants issued against the complainants by the Ugandan Court and letters written by Uganda Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the accused have threatened to extort 20 million dollars (equivalent to Rs 110 crores). In the complaint, there is no mention whatsoever that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any amount was delivered to the accused by the complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an offence of extortion as defined in Section 383 IPC is made out. Section 383 IPC states that:

¶96

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

¶97

1 (2014) 15 SCC 357

¶98

¶99

Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused person pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and an FIR for the offence under Section 384 could not have been registered by the police.

¶100

7. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the impugned FIR and we further direct that if the passport of any of the petitioners has been impounded on account of the impugned FIR which we have quashed, the same shall be released forthwith.”

¶101

(Emphasis supplied)

¶102

The Apex Court holds that unless the property is delivered to the accused person, pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made out and an FIR for offence under Section 384 of the IPC could not have been registered, by the Police thereon. If the finding of the Apex Court, is paraphrased to the facts, obtaining in the case at hand, it would become unmistakably clear that the offence of Section 384 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioner. Threat, undoubtedly is alleged, but there is no delivery of any property pursuant to the threat, and if there is no ransom paid, or any property delivered, the theory of extortion stumbles, as it lacks the ingredients of Section 383 and thus no offence under Section 384 can be made out.

¶103

¶104

The other offence is the one punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. Section 201 of the IPC deals with destruction of evidence. Section 201, in the case at hand, is not even attracted as there is no evidence of extortion even established, in the case at hand. While dealing with Section 201 of the IPC the Apex Court in the case of DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL v. STATE OF GUJARAT² has held as follows:

¶105

5. Several contentions have been raised on merits. That apart, the appellant has also raised a question of law as to whether the conviction under Section 201 IPC could have been maintained while acquitting him of the main offence under Section 498-A IPC. The learned counsel have placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177: AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 Cri LJ 154] , Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of H.P. [Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of H.P., (1953) 1 SCC 86 : AIR 1953 SC 131 : 1953 Cri LJ 668] , and Suleman RehimanMulani v. State of Maharashtra [Suleman RehimanMulani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 : 1968 Cri LJ 1013] .

¶106

6. In Palvinder Kaur [Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177: AIR 1952 SC 354: 1953 Cri LJ 154] , this Court held as follows: (AIR p. 356, para 14)

¶107

“14. In order to establish the charge under Section 201 of the Penal Code, 1860, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed—mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient—that the accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to

¶108

2 (2018) 3 SCC 313

¶109

¶110

screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false.”

¶111

The conviction in this case was ultimately set aside on the aforementioned legal position and the facts.

¶112

7. The Constitution Bench decision in Kalawati [Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of H.P., (1953) 1 SCC 86 : AIR 1953 SC 131 : 1953 Cri LJ 668] may not be of much assistance in this case since the facts are completely different. The co-accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the main offence, and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, this Court deemed it fit to convict Kalawati only under Section 201 IPC.

¶113

8. Relying on Palvinder Kaur [Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177 : AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 Cri LJ 154], this Court in Suleman Rehiman [Suleman RehimanMulani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 : 1968 Cri LJ 1013] , made the following observation: (Suleman Rehiman case [Suleman RehimanMulani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 : 1968 Cri LJ 1013] , AIR p. 830, para 6)

¶114

“ 6 . The conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC depends on the sustainability of the conviction of Appellant 1 under Section 304-A IPC. If Appellant 1 was rightly convicted under that provision, the conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC on the facts found cannot be challenged. But on the other hand, if the conviction of Appellant 1 under Section 304-A IPC cannot be sustained, then, the second appellant's conviction under Section 201 IPC will have to be set aside, because to establish the charge under Section 201, the prosecution must first prove that an offence had been committed not merely a suspicion that it might have been committed—and that the accused knowing or having reason to believe that such an offence had been committed, and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, had caused the evidence thereof to disappear. The proof of the commission of an offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the offence under Section 201 IPC — see the decision of this Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [Palvinder

¶115

¶116

Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177: AIR 1952 SC 354: 1953 Cri LJ 154] .”

¶117

It is necessary to note that the reason for acquittal under Section 201 in the above case was that there was no evidence to show that the rash and negligent act of Appellant 1 caused the death of the deceased. Hence, the court acquitted Appellant 2 under Section 201. The observation at para 6 has to be viewed and analysed in that background.

¶118

9. In Ram Saran Mahto v. State of Bihar [Ram Saran Mahto v. State of Bihar, (1999) 9 SCC 486 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 254] , this Court discussed Kalawati [Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of H.P., (1953) 1 SCC 86 : AIR 1953 SC 131 : 1953 Cri LJ 668] and Palvinder Kaur [Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177 : AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 Cri LJ 154] . It has been held at paras 13 to 15 that conviction under the main offence is not necessary to convict the offender under Section 201 IPC. To quote: (Ram Saran Mahto case [Ram Saran Mahto v. State of Bihar, (1999) 9 SCC 486 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 254] , SCC pp. 490-91)

¶119

“13. It is not necessary that the offender himself should have been found guilty of the main offence for the purpose of convicting him of offence under Section 201. Nor is it absolutely necessary that somebody else should have been found guilty of the main offence. Nonetheless, it is imperative that the prosecution should have established two premises. The first is that an offence has been committed and the second is that the accused knew about it or he had reasons to believe the commission of that offence. Then and then alone can the prosecution succeed, provided the remaining postulates of the offence are also established.

¶120

14. The above position has been well stated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court way back in 1952, in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177 : AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 Cri LJ 154] : (AIR p. 356, para 14)

¶121

‘14. In order to establish the charge under Section 201 of the Penal Code, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed—mere suspicion that it has been committed is not sufficient—that the

¶122

¶123

accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information respecting such offences knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false.’

¶124

15. It is well to remind that the Bench gave a note of caution that the court should safeguard itself against the danger of basing its conclusion on suspicions however strong they may be. In Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of H.P. [Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of H.P., (1953) 1 SCC 86 : AIR 1953 SC 131 : 1953 Cri LJ 668] a Constitution Bench of this Court has, no doubt, convicted an accused under Section 201 IPC even though he was acquitted of the offence under Section 302. But the said course was adopted by this Court after entering the finding that another accused had committed the murder and the appellant destroyed the evidence of it with full knowledge thereof. In a later decision in Nathu v. State of U.P. [Nathu v. State of U.P., (1979) 3 SCC 574 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 733] this Court has repeated the caution in the following words: (SCC p. 575, para 1)

¶125

‘1. Before a conviction under Section 201 can be recorded, it must be shown to the satisfaction of the court that the accused knew or had reason to believe that an offence had been committed and having got this knowledge, tried to screen the offender by disposing off the dead body.’

¶126

(emphasis supplied)

¶127

10. In V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala [V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549: 2001 SCC (Cri) 573] , this Court has discussed the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 201 IPC at para 12: (SCC p. 555)

¶128

“12. Having regard to the language used, the following ingredients emerge:

¶129

(I) committal of an offence;

¶130

(II) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that the main offence has been committed;

¶131

(III) person charged with the offence under Section 201 IPC should have caused disappearance of evidence

¶132

¶133

or should have given false information regarding the main offence; and

¶134

(IV) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.”

¶135

11. In Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra [Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 426] , this Court discussed Kalawati [Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of H.P., (1953) 1 SCC 86 : AIR 1953 SC 131 : 1953 Cri LJ 668] , Palvinder Kaur [Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177 : AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 Cri LJ 154] , Suleman Rehiman [Suleman RehimanMulani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 : 1968 Cri LJ 1013] and V.L. Tresa [V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 573] among others. The essential ingredients for conviction under Section 201 IPC have been discussed at para 18: (Sukhram case [Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502: (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 426] , SCC pp. 510-11)

¶136

“18. The first paragraph of the section contains the postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining three paragraphs prescribe three different tiers of punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each situation. To bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, the ingredients to be established are: ( i ) committal of an offence; ( ii ) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; ( iii ) person charged with the said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence; and ( iv ) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he should have given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false. It is plain that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly needs any emphasis that in order to bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown.”

¶137

¶138

12. In Vijaya v. State of Maharashtra [Vijaya v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 296 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1998] , though this Court held that the decision in V.L. Tresa [V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 573] was of no assistance to the State in the particular facts, it reiterated that: (Vijaya case [Vijaya v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 296 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1998] , SCC p. 299, para 10)

¶139

“10. … There is no quarrel with the legal principle that notwithstanding acquittal with reference to the offence under Section 302 IPC, conviction under Section 201 is permissible, in a given case.”

¶140

13. The decisions in Vijaya [Vijaya v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 296 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1998] and V.L. Tresa [V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 573] were noticed in State of Karnataka v. Madesha [State of Karnataka v. Madesha, (2007) 7 SCC 35 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 292] . While the appeal of the State was dismissed, this Court in unmistakeable terms held that: (Madesha case [State of Karnataka v. Madesha, (2007) 7 SCC 35: (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 292] , SCC p. 39, para 9)

¶141

“9. It is to be noted that there can be no dispute that Section 201 would have application even if the main offence is not established in view of what has been stated in V.L. Tresa [V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 573] and Vijaya [Vijaya v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 296 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1998] cases. …”

¶142

14. Thus, the law is well settled that a charge under Section 201 IPC can be independently laid and conviction maintained also, in case the prosecution is able to establish that an offence had been committed, the person charged with the offence had the knowledge or the reason to believe that the offence had been committed, the said person has caused disappearance of evidence and such act of disappearance has been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment. Mere suspicion is not sufficient, it must be proved that the accused knew or had a reason to believe that the offence has been committed and yet he caused

¶143

¶144

the evidence to disappear so as to screen the offender. The offender may be either himself or any other person.”

¶145

(Emphasis supplied)

¶146

The Apex Court holds that if the offence is not complete, invoking Section 201 of any incomplete offence becomes an abuse of the process of law. Person charged with under Section 201 of the IPC must have the knowledge of the offence being committed; committed would mean completed and then would destroy the evidence. Section 384, in the case at hand, is not even complete. It is only alleged. Therefore, there can be no offence even under Section 201 of the IPC.

¶147

Section 511 of the IPC which is also laid deals with attempt to commit an offence. For the reasons so rendered qua Sections 384 and 201, allegation invoking Section 511 of the IPC also would slump. The other offences that remain are the offences under the Act. Section 66C of the Act reads as follows:

¶148

“ 66-C. Punishment for identity theft .—Whoever, fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature, password or any other unique identification feature of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and

¶149

¶150

shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one lakh.”

¶151

Section 66C mandates that whoever dishonestly makes use electronic signature, pass word or any other unique identification is said to be committing the said offence. There is no allegation of that kind in the case at hand. Section 67 of the Act, punishes whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious or is prurient would become an offence. The said offence also cannot be laid, on the score that the alleged videos or photographs admittedly do not contain any such material. The statements of those women themselves, are that they have uploaded the videos and photographs on their Instagram account. Thus, there is no offence made out under Sections 66 and 67 of the Act. Section 67A

¶152

of the Act is also laid again loosely, as it deals with publishing or transmitting any sexually explicit material. In the subject crime, there is no material of the kind that has been transmitted. Therefore, none of the offences that are laid against the petitioner have any foundation. The documents produced by the petitioner or the evidence are unimpeachable and are of that sterling quality that

¶153

¶154

would entail quashment of the entire proceedings against the petitioner, failing which it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in patent injustice.

¶155

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶156

O R D E R

¶157

(i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶158

(ii) Charge Sheet in Crime No.16 of 2021 filed in C.C.No.3446 of 2022 and pending before the 1^st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore stands quashed.

¶159

Pending applications if any, also stand disposed, as a

¶160

consequence.

¶161

Sd/(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶162

bkp CT:MJ

Mr Rahul Chandrashekar Bhat v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr Rahul Chandrashekar Bhat v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Namita Samantara Vs Directorate of Enforcement Pmla

Smt. Kuthejabi, Vs the State of Karnataka

P Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka

A S Gangothri Vs the State of Karnataka by

Nasrulla Shariff Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri L Prakash Vs the State of Karnatka