Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Pruthvi Sanikam Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Pruthvi Sanikam Vs State of KarnatakaPruthvi Sanikam v. State of Karnataka

Allowed¶49

Pruthvi Sanikam v. State of Karnataka

Quashing of FIR – Alleged breach of agreement to marry and financial assistance – Offences under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC

Karnataka HC15 Jan 2025CRL.P/2832/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No. 2832 of 2020, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, decided 15 January 2025 by Hon'ble Mrs Justice M G Uma. Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C by accused Nos. 1 and 2 (Pruthvi Sanikam and Sanikam Ramakrishna Reddy) to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.72/2020 of Chitradurga Extension police station (informant: Nataraj N.J.) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, arising from an alleged broken marriage engagement, financial assistance and alleged abuse/criminal intimidation. Held: the allegations disclose no offence; money claim is a civil recovery; FIR quashed as abuse of process of law. Search terms: quashing of FIR, Section 482 Cr.P.C, Section 420 IPC cheating, Sections 504 and 506 IPC, breach of promise/agreement to marry, criminal intimidation, abuse of process of law, Chitradurga.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; FIR registered in Crime No.72/2020 of Chitradurga Extension police station, on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sn.Dv) & CJM Court, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, quashed; pending IA No.1 of 2021 disposed of.

Why is it important?

Even if the allegations that accused No.1 agreed to marry respondent No.2's daughter and received financial assistance are accepted, none of the penal provisions could be invoked against accused Nos. 1 and 2. ¶43

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; FIR registered in Crime No.72/2020 of Chitradurga Extension police station, on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sn.Dv) & CJM Court, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, quashed; pending IA No.1 of 2021 disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?

Ratio / Principle

Even if the allegations that accused No.1 agreed to marry respondent No.2's daughter and received financial assistance are accepted, none of the penal provisions could be invoked against accused Nos. 1 and 2.

Key takeaways

If respondent No.2 had paid any amount to accused No.1, he can seek its recovery by approaching the Civil Court.ratio¶43
Accused No.1 cannot be compelled to marry the daughter of respondent No.2 when he is not willing, and the same will not amount to an offence under Section 420 IPC.ratio¶43
None of the penal provisions could have been invoked by the police for registering the FIR, and its registration is in clear abuse of process of law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — Alleged breach of agreement to marry and financial assistance — Offences under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC — Held: even accepting the allegations that accused No.1 agreed to marry the informant's daughter, received financial help and later evaded him, no penal provision is attracted; any amount paid is recoverable by approaching the Civil Court; an unwilling person cannot be compelled to marry, and such refusal does not amount to cheating under Section 420 IPC; registration of the FIR is in clear abuse of process of law — FIR in Crime No.72/2020 of Chitradurga Extension police station quashed in petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C; pending I.A. No.1 of 2021 disposed of.

A

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1343 CRL.P No. 2832 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2832 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

PRUTHVI SANIKAM,

S/O. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, #204, 2^ND BLOCK TURVANURU, NEAR LALESHWARA TEMPLE, TURUVANUR, CHITRADURGA - 577 517.

SANIKAM RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, TURVANURU VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA - 577 501

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. K. DIWAKARA, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. ADITYA .D., AND

SRI. HITESH GOWDA .B.J., ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER 1 & 2)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA EXTENSION POLICE, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001

NATARAJ N.J., S/O LATE JAYARAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O ENTURU LAYOUT, TURVANURU ROAD, CHITRADURGA TOWN, CHITRADURGA - 577 501

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:1343 CRL.P No. 2832 of 2020

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SWAPNA R. NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. RAJESH, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.72/2020 REGISTERED BY CHITRADURGA EXTENSION POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 504, 506 OF IPC PENDING FOR THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SN.DV) AND CJM COURT, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA.

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

Even though the matter is listed for 'Admission', as both the learned counsels are ready to address their arguments on merits, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

The petitioners being accused Nos. 1 and 2 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them by respondent No.2 in Crime No.72/2020 of Chitradurga Extension police station, on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sn.Dv) & CJM Court, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code (in short` 'IPC Act').

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1343 CRL.P No. 2832 of 2020

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information with Chitradurga Extension police against accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are the petitioners herein alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 of IPC. It is stated that, initially accused No.1 was working as a Commercial Tax Officer and he wanted to marry the daughter of respondent No.2. During 2019, both the families agreed for the marriage and respondent No.2 provided financial help to accused No.1. Later, he got selected in KPSC exam and appointed as Tahsildhar. It was decided to have the engagement ceremony on 28.02.2020. But when respondent No. 2 tried to contact accused No. 1 over phone, he was not picking up the call. He started evading respondent No. 2. Since 11.02.2020, he was found missing, when respondent No.2 contacted accused No.2, he abused him and criminally intimidated to take away the life. Therefore, it is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 committed cheating and criminally intimidated and hence, requested the police to register the case

and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.72/2020 of Chitradurga Extension police station came to be registered and investigation was undertaken. In the meantime,

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1343 CRL.P No. 2832 of 2020

the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

Heard Sri K.Diwakara, learned counsel for Sri Aditya D & Sri Hitesh Gowda B.J, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Swapna R Nair, learned counsel for Sri A Rajesh, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on records.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

R E A S O N S

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that,

the only allegation made against accused No.1 is that he was not picking up call of respondent No. 2 and he evaded him. The allegation against accused No.2 is that, he spoke rudely with respondent No.2 when he repeatedly called him. The allegation

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1343 CRL.P No. 2832 of 2020

against accused No. 1 that he agreed to marry the daughter of respondent No.2 and that he had received the financial assistance has no basis. No criminal offence whatsoever is made out. Sections 420, 504, 506 of IPC could not have been invoked by the police. Registration of the FIR is in abuse of process of law and hence, the petition is to be allowed.

On perusal of the averments made in the first information, a major concern of respondent No.2 is that, accused No.1 who agreed to marry his daughter, later started evading him. Even he has not agreed for the engagement ceremony. It is also stated that respondent No.2 has helped accused No.1 financially and inspite of that, he is not marrying his daughter. Even if such allegations are to be accepted, none of the penal provisions could be invoked against accused Nos. 1 and 2. If respondent No.2 had paid any amount to accused No.1, he can seek its recovery by approaching the Civil Court. Accused No.1 cannot be compelled to marry the daughter of respondent No.2 when he is not willing. The same will not amount to Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, none of the penal provision could have been invoked by the police for registering the FIR and it is in clear abuse of process of law. Therefore, I

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1343 CRL.P No. 2832 of 2020

am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.72/2020 of Chitradurga Extension police station, on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Sn.Dv) & CJM Court, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 of IPC is hereby quashed.

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending IA No.1 of 2021 stands disposed of.

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?¶36

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C)482¶23
Indian Penal Code420, 504, 506¶28 420¶43

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
FIR in Crime No.72/2020 registered by Chitradurga Extension Police against the petitioners (accused Nos. 1 and 2) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, along with the complaint, sought to be quashed; proceedings pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Sn.Dv) & CJM Court, Chitradurga.¶28
Principal Civil Judge (Sn.Dv) & CJM Court, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information with Chitradurga Extension police against accused Nos. 1 and 2, alleging that accused No.1, after a marriage agreement and financial help, evaded the informant, went missing from 11.02.2020, and that accused No.2 abused and criminally intimidated the informant.¶30
Prior proceeding
On the first information, FIR in Crime No.72/2020 of Chitradurga Extension police station was registered and investigation was undertaken.¶31
Prior proceeding
The petitioners (accused Nos. 1 and 2) approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.¶33

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Pruthvi Sanikam (Petitioner No.1 / Accused No.1)¶8
K. Diwakara, Aditya D., Hitesh Gowda B.J.
petitioner
Sanikam Ramakrishna Reddy (Petitioner No.2 / Accused No.2)¶10
respondent
State of Karnataka by Chitradurga Extension Police, rep. by State Public Prosecutor (Respondent No.1)¶17
respondent
Nataraj N.J. (Respondent No.2 / Informant)¶18
Swapna R. Nair, A. Rajesh

Coram

AI extract

M G UMAauthor¶25

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 15 Jan 2025 · January
Registered: 22 Jun 2020
Case no.: CRL.P/2832/2020
CNR: KAHC010176612020
Topic: Cheating and Forgery
Bench: M G Uma
Disposal: ALLOWED
Case type: CRL.P

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from M G Uma

Sri D M Manjunath Vs Smt K S Anitha @ K S Lakshmi
13 Jan 2025
Dr Prakash G C IAS Vs Sri Puttegowda
13 Jan 2025
Syed Jamsid @ Khaseem Vs State of Karnataka
13 Jan 2025
M R Ramachandraiah Vs State of Karnataka by
15 Jan 2025
Daimler Financial Services India Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka
15 Jan 2025
Dr.Sheela Sundar Vs State of Karnataka
15 Jan 2025

Cite this judgement

Pruthvi Sanikam v. State of Karnataka, CRL.P/2832/2020 (KA), decided on 15 January 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C)482
Indian Penal Code420, 504, 506 · 420

View all statutes

Procedural history4

FIR in Crime No.72/2020 registered by Chitradurga Extension Police against the petitioners (accused Nos. 1 and 2) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 IPC, along with the complaint, sought to be quashed; proceedings pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Sn.Dv) & CJM Court, Chitradurga.Principal Civil Judge (Sn.Dv) & CJM Court, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga
Respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information with Chitradurga Extension police against accused Nos. 1 and 2, alleging that accused No.1, after a marriage agreement and financial help, evaded the informant, went missing from 11.02.2020, and that accused No.2 abused and criminally intimidated the informant.
On the first information, FIR in Crime No.72/2020 of Chitradurga Extension police station was registered and investigation was undertaken.

View full history

Bench / Coram

M G UMA

Parties & counsel

View all holdings →