Karnataka High Court

Mr. Abhay Singh vs State Of Karnataka By on 17 February, 2022

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2499 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

  1. MR. ABHAY SINGH
     AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
     SON OF MR.BHAGWAN SINGH
     NOW RESIDING AT B-405
     SALARPURIA SPLENDOR
     20 NR COLONY
     OLD AIRPORT ROAD
     BANGALORE-560017.

  2. MR NAGARAJU NARASIMHAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
     SON OF MR L NARASIMAIAH
     NOW RESIDING AT A-708,
     GREENCITY EUTOPIA,
     NO.9 16TH MAIN,
     BTM 2ND STAGE,
     BANGALORE-560076.

  3. MS SHAHRAZAD ZAID
     AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
     DAUGHTER OF AQUIL AHMED
     HASHIM, NOW RESIDING AT NO.809
     10TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK
     KORAMANGALA
     BANGALORE-560034.
                        -:2:-


  4. MR SAMPATHKUMAR MAGALINGAM
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     SON OF MR.MAHALINGAM
     NOW RESIDING AT A5 GROUND FLOOR
     HRC HEAVEN APARTMENTS,
     VINAYAKA NAGAR,
     NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE HAGDUR
     WHITEFIELD PO
     BANGALORE-560066.

  5. MR PONNAMBALAM SHANMUGANATHAN
     AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
     SON OF MR.M PONNAMBALAM,
     NOW RESIDING AT 17093,
     PRESTIGE SHANTHNIKETAN,
     ITPL MAIN ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560048.

  6. MR ALAN K JENSEN JR
     AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
     SON OF MR ALAN KIMBLE JENSEN,
     NOW RESIDING AT 340 VIA LOMA
     MOGAN HILL CA 95037
     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.       ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI MAHESH S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

  1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
     WHITEFIELD POLICE WHITEFIELD,
     BANGALORE,
     REPRESENTED BY THE
     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BANGALORE-01.
                              -:3:-


   2. MRS. HEMAVATHI PRASANNA
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
      WIFE OF MR PRASANNA B
      RESIDING AT NO.217, 4TH CROSS,
      8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
      BANGALORE-560070.                      ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1,
 SRI G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                       -----
      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.43/2018 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT WHITEFIELD POLICE
STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE ACJM
BENGALURU     RURAL,    BENAGALURU   AND   ALL   ITS
CONSEQUENT      INVESTIGATION    AS   AGAINST   THE
PETITIONER.

    THIS   CRIMINAL    PETITION COMING    ON   FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

The second respondent lodged the first information

report before the Jurisdictional Police against the petitioners

alleging that, the petitioners created false email I.D. and sent

fake mails to the company by forcibly making her to sign on

the resignation letter which resulted in termination of the

employment of the second respondent by the company

without giving her any compensation.

2. The Jurisdictional Police registered the FIR

against the petitioners in Crime No.43/2018 for the offence

punishable under Sections 420, 120(B) of IPC and Section 67

of the Information and Technology Act, 2008. Being

aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, this petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that the allegations made in the FIR does not

discloses commission of the offence as alleged against the

petitioners and also in the absence of any explanation offered

by the second respondent having lodged the first information

report after the lapse of 5 years from the date of the alleged

incident, the registration of the FIR against the petitioners is

not sustainable in law.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

the second respondent would submit that false email I.D.

was created and fake mails were sent to the company due to

which it resulted in termination of employment of the second

respondent by the company and also was not given any

compensation for the alleged termination. Hence, he submits

that the Police after investigating the case has rightly

registered the FIR against the petitioners.

5. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State

would justify the registration of FIR against the petitioners.

6. I have examined the submission made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

7. In the FIR lodged by the second respondent it is

alleged that, on 5.7.2013, the employment of the second

respondent was terminated on account of creating of fake

email I.D.'s and sending the mails to the company by

forcibly making her to sign on the resignation letter which

resulted in termination of the employment of the second

respondent without giving any compensation.

8. It is not in dispute that second respondent has

not placed any material along with the impugned FIR to

substantiate her allegations made against the petitioners. To

constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC,

there must be a specific allegation that from the inception

there must be dishonest intention to cheat the second

respondent. In the absence of any material to substantiate

the allegations made against the petitioners and also having

regard to the fact that allegations made in the first

information report does not discloses the commission of any

offence as alleged against the petitioners, the impugned FIR

registered against the petitioners is not sustainable in law.

9. It is further noted that the second respondent

after alleged termination of employment had approached the

Labour Court for redressal of her grievance which culled out

in dismissal of the dispute and thereafter she approached the

jurisdictional Civil Court and the second respondent having

failed to obtain an interim order against the company has

filed the complaint as alleged in the FIR. The second

respondent has not offered any explanation with regard to

delay in lodging the FIR.

10. The Apex Court in the case of Kishan Singh

(Dead) Through Lrs. vs. Gurpal Singh and others reported in

(2010) 8 SCC 775, at para 21, held as under:

" 21. Prompt and early reporting of the occurrence

by the informant with all its vivid details gives as

assurance regarding truth of its version. In case

there is some delay in filing the FIR, the complainant

must give explanation for the same. Undoubtedly,

delay in lodging the FIR does not make the

complainant's case improbable when such delay is

properly explained. However, deliberate delay in

lodging the complaint is always fatal."

11. The Apex Court in the case of Thermax Limited

and others vs. K.M. Jhony and others reported in (2011)

13 SCC 412, at para 49, held as under:

"49. when The entire analysis of the complaints with

reference to the principles enunciated above and the

ingredients of Sections 405, 406, 420 read with

Section 34 of IPC clearly show that there was

inordinate delay and laches, the complaint itself is

inherently improbable and contains the flavour of

civil nature and taking note of the closure of earlier

three complaints that too after thorough

investigation by the Police, we are of the view that

the Magistrate committed a grave error in calling for

a report under Section 156(3) of the Code from the

Crime Branch, Pune, In view of those infirmities and

in the light of Section 482 of the Code, the High

Court ought to have quashed those proceedings to

safeguard the rights of the appellants. For the

reasons, the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate,

First Class, Pimpri in CC No.12 of 2002 on 20-8-2007

and the judgment of the High Court dated 11-1-2008

in Criminal Writ Petition No.1622 of 2007 are set

aside. The complaint filed by the Respondent herein

is quashed."