Mr Jonathan Mills Vs State by Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR DATED 18.06.2019 REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.182/2019 REGISTERED BY THE JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR POLICE STATION, HALASURU SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354-A, 504, 509 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 10^TH ACMM, BENGALURU.

¶26

IN CRL.P NO.5252/2019:

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

MR JONATHAN MILLS, MANAGING DIRECTOR RCI APMC & DAE GLOBAL, 223 MOUNTBATTEN ROAD #03-11, SINGAPORE-398008.

¶29

...PETITIONER

¶30

(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VASEDEVAN H.N., ADVOCATE)

¶31

AND:

¶32

STATE BY JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR POLICE STATION, HALASURU SUB-DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:50476 CRL.P No. 5440 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5252 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5441 of 2019

¶35

3 -

¶36

CNR: KAHC010221492019

¶37

MRS. SABINA CHOPRA, W/O MR. AADESH CHOPRA, R/AT 201, GOPALAN ADMIRALITY COURT, 6^TH MAIN ROD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 038.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SURYANSH NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶40

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND THE FIR DATED 18.06.2019 REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.182/2019 REGISTERED BY THE JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR POLICE STATION, HALASURU SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU IN PENDING 10^TH ACMM, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354-A, 504, 509 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶41

IN CRL.P NO.5441/2019:

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

MR. RISHI VERMA, DIRECTOR REVENUE MANAGEMENT & RESORT OPERATIONS ASIA PACIFIC AND INDIA, RCI ASIA-PACIFIC LLC, 223, MOUNTBATTEN ROAD # 03-11, SINGAPORE-398008.

¶44

...PETITIONER

¶45

(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VASEDEVAN H.N., ADVOCATE)

¶46

AND:

¶47

STATE BY JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR POLICE STATION, HALASURU SUB-DIVISION,

¶48

4 -

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:50476 CRL.P No. 5440 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5252 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5441 of 2019

¶51

CNR: KAHC010221492019

¶52

REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶53

MRS. SABINA CHOPRA, W/O MR AADESH CHOPRA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT 201, GOPALAN ADMIRALITY COURT, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560038.

¶54

...RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SURYANSH NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶56

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND THE FIR DATED JUNE 18, 2019 REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.182/2019 REGISTERED BY THE JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR POLICE STATION, HALASURU SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 354-A, 504, 509 AND R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 10^TH ACMM, BENGALURU.

¶57

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶58

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶59

ORAL ORDER

¶60

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned

¶61

High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant in all the cases.

¶62

5 -

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

NC: 2026:KHC:50476 CRL.P No. 5440 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5252 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5441 of 2019

¶65

CNR: KAHC010221492019

¶66

2. These petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 to quash the complaint and FIR dated 18.06.2019 registered in Crime No.182/2019 by Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station, Halasuru Sub-Division, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 354A, 504, 509 read with 34 of IPC and pass such other orders as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶67

3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant is that, an accusation is made in the complaint dated 18.06.2019 at Annexure-A and specific allegations and attribution is made against accused No.1 i.e., Mr. Jonathan Mills, the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5252/2019, in paragraph Nos.1 to 6. In respect of accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.5440/2019 and 5441/2019, their presence was mentioned in paragraph No.9 of the complaint. However, in first part of paragraph No.9, no such allegations except their presence. But in second part of the complaint, an allegation is made that the complainant was criminally intimidated, coerced and threatened to sign the document of resignation including resigning as Director of the company. The complainant refused to do so. At this point, accused Nos.2 and 3 started abusing her by calling bitch/witch

¶68

6 -

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

NC: 2026:KHC:50476 CRL.P No. 5440 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5252 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5441 of 2019

¶71

CNR: KAHC010221492019

¶72

and other words, using all kind of un-parliamentary language and threatened her and entire family with dire consequences, if she did not comply with their illegal designs. They further said that because the complainant as a woman has made the above complaint against accused No.1, accused No.1 will be punishing the complainant by terminating her employment. Having taken note of the contents of this complaint, case was registered for the above offences.

¶73

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Court has to take note of the date of the complaint i.e., 18.06.2019, which was filed after termination of employment of the complainant on 17.06.2019. The learned Senior Counsel would also contend that an allegation is made against accused No.1 in the complaint which is registered as FIR that he sent e-mail in the odd hour. An allegation is made in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3 that they abused the complainant in an un-parliamentary words calling her as bitch and also an allegation is made in respect of the incident of signing of document and causing the threat. The learned counsel would submit that the Court has to

¶74

7 -

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:50476 CRL.P No. 5440 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5252 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5441 of 2019

¶77

CNR: KAHC010221492019

¶78

take note of that the complaint is filed on the very next day of her termination from employment.

¶79

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant would submit that there are specific allegations not only against accused No.1 in paragraph Nos.1 to 7 of the complaint, but there are specific allegations against accused No.2 and 3 in the second part of paragraph No.9 of the complaint. Though not specifically stated the words which have been used, except calling her as bitch and reference is made that un-parliamentary language was used and also threatened with dire consequences. The Court has to take note of the initiation of proceedings and this is a matter to be investigated by the Investigating Officer whether such incident was taken place or not. The learned counsel would contend that unless investigation is conducted, the truth will not come out and the truth has to be unearthed by the Investigating Officer and the Court has to look into the contents of the complaint while proceeding and invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶80

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶81

appearing for respondent No.1/State would submit that matter

¶82

8 -

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

NC: 2026:KHC:50476 CRL.P No. 5440 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5252 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5441 of 2019

¶85

CNR: KAHC010221492019

¶86

requires investigation and the very quashing of registration of FIR cannot be done when serious allegations of outraging modesty of a woman is alleged in the complaint and also other allegations of causing of life threat and using of unparliamentary words is made.

¶87

7. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, while invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the Court must be conscious about the allegations made in the complaint. It is settled law that while quashing the FIR, the Court has to look into the contents of the complaint as to whether such allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence invoked against the petitioners. But on perusal of paragraph Nos.1 to 7 of the complaint, allegations are made in respect of accused No.1 is concerned that on 12.03.2019 at 2.03 a.m. he sent an e-mail to the complainant and also gave a link. Three exclamation marks and putting of the smiley sign at the end of the said message clearly shows that the accused was making suggestions as was being done verbally. The said

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

NC: 2026:KHC:50476 CRL.P No. 5440 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5252 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5441 of 2019

¶90

9 -

¶91

CNR: KAHC010221492019

¶92

message had nothing to do with the official discharge of the obligations by the complainant or by the accused and it was only aimed to mentally harm and harass the complainant in the middle of the night. With regard to the specific accusation made with regard to the incident of 12.03.2019, the Investigating Officer has to unearth the truth by investigating the same. But the Court has to take note of the fact that when the said allegation was made dated 12.03.2019, no doubt, the complainant was terminated from employment subsequently on 17.06.2019, but in paragraph No.9 of the complaint, the complainant included the names of accused Nos.2 and 3, who are the Vice President-Finance and Director, Singapore, that they were present. An allegation is also made that the said two persons along with Jonathan Mills and Grace Ng told the complainant that due to the complaint made by the complainant to the internal committee of the company, the company was terminating her. The first part of paragraph No.9 of the complaint is only with regard to terminating her. But in second part of paragraph No.9 made an allegation against accused Nos.2 and 3. The Court has to take note of that this

¶93

10 -

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:50476 CRL.P No. 5440 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5252 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5441 of 2019

¶96

CNR: KAHC010221492019

¶97

allegation is made on the next day i.e. on 18.06.2019. This allegation was not brought to notice of anyone in the previous day when the complainant was forced to sign the documents on 17.06.2019.

¶98

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that after thought this allegation is made, that too after tendering the resignation and the Court has to take note of the said fact into consideration. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant would vehemently contend that the Court has to take note of the second part of paragraph No.9 of the complaint wherein an allegation is made against accused Nos.2 and 3 and the matter requires investigation.

¶99

9. The Court has to take note of that the complaint was filed on the next day of her termination from employment and there was no any previous allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 and except the omnibus statement of shouting on the complainant and using abusive and unheard unparliamentary language, nothing is stated, except calling her as bitch. Even with regard to the dire consequences is also

¶100

11 -

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:50476 CRL.P No. 5440 of 2019 C/W CRL.P No. 5252 of 2019 CRL.P No. 5441 of 2019

¶103

CNR: KAHC010221492019

¶104

concerned, the word which was used in the said threat is not stated in the complaint. Only an omnibus allegation is made in the second part of paragraph No.9 of the complaint. When such being the case, it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in respect of accused Nos.2 and 3 only. Insofar as accused No.1 is concerned, the matter requires investigation having taken note of the factual aspects of the case and contents of the complaint and particularly paragraph Nos.1 to 7 of the complaint attributed against accused No.1 and hence, not a case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in favour of accused No.1.

¶105

10. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶106

following:

¶107

ORDER

¶108

(i) Crl.P.No.5252/2019 is dismissed.

¶109

(ii) Crl.P.Nos.5440/2019 and 5441/2019 are allowed and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are quashed.

¶110

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶111

MD

¶112

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Mr Jonathan Mills v. State by Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Jonathan Mills v. State by Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station

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