Smt Ruhin Thaj @ Rohin Taj a Vs State of Karnataka

SMT RUHIN THAJ @ ROHIN TAJ A W/O INTHIYAZ KHAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.3, GROUND FLOOR, 10^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, TILAK SCHOOL ROAD, OLA MANGAMMANAPALYA ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 068

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SUMEER @ SUMAIR S.A. S/O ALTAF S.A., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶12

SHEK ALTHAF @ S.A. ALTAF S/O SHEIK AHMED, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

¶13

PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO 99/3, 8^TH CROSS, MADEENA NAGAR, NEAR ILMA INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL MANGAMMANAPALAYA, BOMMANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 068

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:45329 CRL.P No. 7819 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

(BY SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶21

BY BANDEPALYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶22

SMT HAJIRA KHAN W/O JAKIR KHAN, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO 54, 8^TH CROSS, NEAR KHAJA MASJID, PAPULAR COLONY MANGAMANAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 068

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1

¶25

SRI. K. RAM SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.279/2024 REGISTER BY RESPONDENT NO.1 BANDEPALYA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 3(5), 308(2), 351(2), 352 OF BNS 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IX ACJM, BENGALURU.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶28

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:45329 CRL.P No. 7819 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.279/2024 of Bandepalya Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 3(5), 308(2), 351(2) and 352 of BNS, 2023.

¶35

As per the complaint averments, the petitioner and respondent No.2 were in a relationship and during that time, it is alleged that the complainant's photos were taken by the petitioner and keeping those photos, he was blackmailing the complainant and due to fear, complainant is said to have given money and gold ornaments, which as per the complainant is by force and blackmail. Various transactions are mentioned in the complaint. It is also alleged that the petitioner has abused and threatened the complainant telling her that he will reveal the photos and show it to her husband and thus, blackmailing her.

¶36

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as far as these petitioners are concerned, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4 they are not only falsely

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:45329 CRL.P No. 7819 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

implicated, but no specific averments are there in the complaint and the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners are not made out.

¶41

This court cannot conduct an enquiry into the allegations made in the complaint. The complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence wherein the police are duty bound to investigate and file an appropriate report. In D. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. v. M.K.Mohan Krishnamachari & Ors. reported in 2009 (10) SCC 488 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime and the Courts normally ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferred on High Court has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the test laid down in the provision itself. The police shall conduct a fair investigation and if the petitioner is aggrieved by any adverse report filed against him by the police, it is always open for him to challenge the same.

¶42