SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt Jyothi S vs State Of Karnataka on 30 August, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

WRIT PETITION Nos.15765-15766/2018 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. Smt. Jyothi S,
W/o. Late Shyam Sundar Prasad,
Aged about 58 years

2. Sri. Deepak S.,
S/o. late Shyam Sundar Prasad,
Aged about 37 years

Both are residing at
# Dharani No.319, 10th Cross,
Post Office Road, ISEC Main Road,
Colony Nagarabhavi Circle,
Bengaluru City – 560 072. …Petitioners

(By Sri. S.N. Naik, Advocate)

AND:

1. State of Karnataka,
By Kodigehalli Police Station,
Rep. by its State Public Prosecutor,
High Court Building,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bengaluru – 560 001.
2

2. Anitha Baggana,
Ponnappa,
D/o. B.P. Ponnappa,
Aged about 39 years,
Fortuna Center Park Apt.,
Flat No – 022, Ground Floor,
D-Block, 8th A Main, 10th Cross,
Canara Bank Layout,
Bengaluru City – 560 097. …Respondents

(By Sri. S. Rachaiah, HCGP for R1,
Sri. S. Ravi, Advocate for R2)

These Writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No. 263/2017
dated 16.11.2017 arising out of PCR No.12543/2017 vide
Annexure – A dated 11.10.2017 pending on the file of the
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru against the
petitioners/accused No.2 and 3 for the offences punishable
under Sections 376, 493, 420 r/w Section 34 IPC.

These Writ petitions coming on for Preliminary
Hearing – B Group, this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

3

2. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in

Crime No.263/2017 registered for the offences punishable

under Sections 376, 493, 420 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. The said case has been registered based on the

private complaint lodged by respondent No.2. The sum and

substance of the allegations made in the private complaint

are that respondent No.2 was running three paying guest

businesses in Bengaluru and so also doing a business in POP

Ceiling designing and she came in contact with the accused

No.1. The further allegations made in the private complaint

at para 6 reads as under:

“6. By assuring this false promise, the
Respondent No.1 started squatting at the home
of the Complainant, and that he loves her a lot,
she is the world for him and with all this
flowering words and instigated Complainant to
sell all her above said businesses i.e., three
paying guest business and said POP Ceiling
designing business, believing him since she
being a single women who was in need of a
good husband gave all her amount to the
Respondent No.1/Accused No.1. Upon receiving
4

the said amount, Respondent No.1/Accused
No.1 took away on pretext saying that he will be
investing the said amount partly into real estate
business and partly into some share financial
investments. Later it was found the part of
amount has been paid to Respondent No.2 3,
when same was questioned by the Complainant,
Respondent No.1 told Complainant that he gave
the money because they were demanding to get
more dowry from the complainant hence he has
given the same to them. However believing the
same, further believing that he will take care of
her family, the Complainant agreed to all his
terms and starting yielding to his demanded.

……

Complainant became pregnant, even this news
was not happy for the Respondent No.1 where
he insisted to abort the child, believing that the
Respondent will get married the Complainant
decided to retain the said child and the said child
was delivered on 3-3-2014 and even in the birth
certificate the name of the father that says as
Naveen Kumar i.e., the Respondent No.1.
………

Further many times, whenever the financial
issue aroused, the Respondent No.1/Accused
5

No.1 told that he has paid some part of the
above said sold amount that belong to the
Complainant has been given to Respondent
No.2/Accused No.2 and Respondent
No.3/Accused No.3 for their expenses and
livelihood.”

4. As could be seen from the above, the material

allegations are directed only against accused No.1. There

are specific allegations that by making false promise,

accused No.1 committed repeated intercourse on

respondent No.2 and she begot a child through accused

No.1. None of these allegations make out the offence of

rape under Section 376 of IPC or the ingredients of the

offences under Sections 498A and 493 of IPC against the

petitioners.

5. The learned counsel for respondent No.2

contends that the allegations made in the complaint attract

the ingredients of offence under Section 420 of IPC. But, on

carefully going through the complaint, I do not find that the

allegations made therein are sufficient to make out the
6

ingredients of offence under Section 420 of IPC against

anyone of the petitioners. The only allegation made in this

regard is that, after extorting the money from respondent

No.2, accused No.1 paid part of the said amount to

respondent Nos.2 and 3 namely the petitioners herein. The

said allegation, even if uncontroverted would not make out

the ingredients constituting the offence under Section 420

of IPC.

6. On considering the entire case of the

complainant as projected in the complaint, I find the

allegations against the petitioners appear to have been

made solely with a view to pressurize the petitioners to

prevail upon accused No.1 to agree with the demand of the

complainant. I do not find any material to proceed against

the petitioners for the alleged offences. The prosecution of

the petitioners in my considered view is nothing but an

abuse of process of Court. Therefore, it is liable to be

quashed.

7

7. Accordingly, petitions are allowed. Institution of

criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein pursuant

to the private complaint lodged by respondent No.2 in PCR

No.12543/2017 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bengaluru City and consequent registration of

FIR in Crime No.263/2017 are hereby quashed only insofar

as petitioners herein are concerned. Jurisdictional police

shall proceed with the investigation insofar as accused No.1

is concerned.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sv/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation