Sri Darshan M vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3503 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGAL URU

     DATED THIS THE 25 T H DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021

                       BEFOR E

THE HON'BLE MR . JUSTICE SREEN IVAS HARISH KUMAR

       CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1751 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

Sri Darshan M.,
S/o Muralidhar B.V.,
Aged about 27 years,
Residing at No.201,
Sri Skanda Enclave,
7 t h Cross, 9 t h Main,
Bikasipura, Bengaluru-560111.
                                           ...Petitioner
(By Sri Shashi Kumar G.V., Advocate)

AND:

1.   State of Karnataka,
     Cyber Crime Police Station, Mysuru City,
     Represented by State Public Prosecutor,
     High Court of Karnataka,
     Bengaluru-560001.

2.   Smt. Ashwini S. Kashyap,
     D/o H.S.Sridhara,
     Aged about 26 years,
     R/at No.1672, 9 t h Cross,
     4 t h Main, E & F B lock,
     Ramakrishna Nagar,
     Mysuru-570022.
                                        ...Respondents
(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP for R1;
    Sri Jayakumar N .D., Advocate for R2)
                             :: 2 ::


     This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
of   Cr.P.C.,     praying     to       quash          the        FIR    in
Cr.No.247/2019     pending     on      the     file     of       JMFC-II,
Mysuru.

     This Criminal Petition coming on for admission
this day, the Court made the following:

                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

2. This is a petition under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR in Crime

No.247/2019 registered by the first respondent

police for the offences punishable under Sections

419 and 420 of IPC and Section 66(c) of the

Information Technology Act, 2000.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the marriage of the petitioner and

second respondent was solemnized on 20.04.2018.

:: 3 ::

The differences between them led to the second

respondent filing a petition for divorce,

M.C.No.359/2019. In the same petition, the

petitioner herein also made a counter claim for

divorce. That the petition of the second

respondent for divorce came to be dismissed and

the counter claim of petitioner herein was allowed.

When the divorce petition was pending, the parties

were directed to go for mediation and that it also

failed. Ultimately consequent to allowing of the

counter claim of the petitioner, the marriage

between her and the second respondent was

dissolved and the petitioner was directed to pay

permanent alimony of Rs.2,00,000/-. The

judgment in MC No.359/2019 was passed on

28.01.2021. It is his submission that after the

mediation failed, on 17.11.2019, the second

respondent thought of approaching the police by

making false allegations. Based on this, FIR came

to be registered. All the allegations made therein :: 4 ::

are false. The petitioner has not committed any

offence. If the Annexure-C i.e., the complaint

dated 17.11.2019 does not disclose any offence

and therefore, this Court has to quash the FIR.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 submits that the second

respondent approached the police for the first time

on 26.07.2019. Since the police did not take any

action on 17.11.2019, the second respondent gave

a reminder to the police for taking action.

Pursuant to this reminder, the police registered

FIR. In the complaint that the second respondent

made on 26.7.2019, it is clearly stated that the

petitioner gave the second respondent a new

POCCO phone and took the Redmi phone that she

was using earlier. From the POCCO phone, she

could not log into her email-id as the petitioner,

without her consent gained access to her email-id

and meddled with the password. Whenever she :: 5 ::

tried to use her email-id, the OTP was being sent

to the mobile phones of the petitioner and

therefore, she could not open the mail box at all.

She has stated that the petitioner did so with an

ulterior motive to use her photos and personal

data illegally and to destroy the evidence against

him. Therefore, it is his argument that the

allegations found in the complaint dated

26.07.2019 clearly indicate an offence under

Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act

being committed. Merely because in the reminder

dated 17.11.2019, details are not forthcoming, it

cannot be said that FIR does not disclose any

offence. It is his submission that here is a case

for investigation which cannot be stopped by

quashing the FIR.

5. I have perused annexure 'C' dated

17.11.2019 which the 2 n d respondent wrote to the

police and also the 1 s t report made by her on :: 6 ::

26.7.2019. In annexure 'C' it is clearly stated that

the 2nd respondent requested the SHO of

Kuvempunagar Police Station to convert her earlier

complaint from GP to FIR. It is true that when the

2nd respondent approached the police on

26.7.2019, the police, instead of registering an

FIR, made an endorsement on it as

GP.No.456/2019. The FIR was registered pursuant

to annexure 'C' for the offences under Section 419

and 420 of IPC and Section 66(C) of The

Information Technology Act. The essential

ingredient of Section 66(c) of IT Act is that a

person must have fraudulently or dishonestly

made use of electronic signature, password or any

other unique identification feature of any other

person. Section 420 IPC requires dishonestly

inducing a person to deliver any property to

person causing inducement or making, altering or

destroying whole or any part of the security. This

amounts to cheating. The allegations found in the :: 7 ::

first report dated 26.07.2019 indicate the

ingredients of the offences under Section 420 of

IPC and Section 66(c) of the Information

Technology Act being present.

6. Section 66(C) of the Information

Technology Act envisages punishment of

imprisonment extending upto three years with fine

upto Rs.1 Lakh. That means an offender may be

punished for a maximum period of three years and

according to Section 77B this offence is a

cognizable offence. Section 420 IPC is also a

cognizable offence. This being the position, it is

not understandable as to why the police did not

take any action pursuant to the first complaint

dated 26.7.2019. Therefore, if the second

respondent made a reminder to the police on

17.11.2019, and consequently FIR came to be

registered it cannot be said to be bad in law.

:: 8 ::

7. The second respondent is the wife of the

petitioner. Their matrimonial relationship has

strained. There are clear allegations against the

petitioner that he tampered with the mobile phone

of the second respondent and the password that

she was using for accessing her email account.

The second respondent alleges that the petitioner

resorted to preventing her from accessing her

email ID using her phone to destroy the evidence

against him. There is a case for investigation.

The submission of the petitioner's counsel that the

allegations are false, cannot be per-se believed.

Therefore I do not find any merit in this petition.

Accordingly petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Kmv/-