Karnataka High Court
Smt Roja Shree vs State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:15883
CRL.P No. 4865 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4865 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ROJA SHREE
D/O RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
AGASANAHALLI,
DASRAKALLAHALLI,
BHADRAVATHI SHIVAMOGGA - 577 227.
2. SRI. RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA,
R/AT NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL,
AGASANAHALLI,
Digitally signed by DASRAKALLAHALLI,
VEDAVATHI A K
Location: High
BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 227.
Court of Karnataka
3. SRI. CHETHAN R
S/O RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NEAR BUS STAND,
AGASANAHALLI,
DASRAKALLAHALLI,
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 227.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PANDURANGA G., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:15883
CRL.P No. 4865 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HAL POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. KUMARI. SONIA
D/O R. D. PANI,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.155,
VEERABHADRAIAH BUILDING,
3RD CROSS, SHIVANAND NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 017.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. G. V. KRISHNA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
112/2022 REGISTERED BY THE HAL POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506, 34, 504, 418,
406, 420, 417 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE IV
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT
BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:15883
CRL.P No. 4865 of 2022
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioner-accused
Nos.6, 10 and 13 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR
in Crime No.112/2022, registered by the HAL Police Station,
pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under
Sections 506, 504, 418, 406, 420, 417 read with Section 34 of
IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent State.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has remained
absent.
3. The case of prosecution is that on the complaint of
respondent No.2 before the police on 19.05.2022, the police
registered the case. It is alleged that accused No.1, who is not
the petitioner before this Court, is said to be fell in love with
the complainant. Both of them had sexual affair. Accused No.1
said to be promised the complainant to marry her, but he did
NC: 2024:KHC:15883
not marry her and subsequently, he married accused No.6. The
petitioners said to be threatened the respondent No.2-
complainant and abused her filthy language. The police
registered FIR and started investigation in the matter, which is
under challenge in this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that
petitioner No.1 (accused No.6) is the wife of accused No.1,
petitioner No.2 (accused No.10) is the father of Petitioner No.1
and petitioner No.3 (accused No.13) is the brother of Petitioner
No.1 and they are nothing to do with the case. The petitioners
had not promised the complainant to get married with accused
No.1. They have not abused the complainant in filthy language.
Even otherwise, when two adults having sexual affair and in
case, the marriage was not done, it cannot be considered as
cheating. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel
has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
VENKATESH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND ANOTHER in Criminal Petition No.5865/2021 decided on
13.01.2022.
NC: 2024:KHC:15883
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader has
objected the petition contending that accused No.1 cheated the
complainant by promising to marry her, thereafter, he did not
marry her, and he married petitioner No.1 (accused No.6). All
the petitioners abused the complainant in filthy language.
Hence, prayed for dismiss the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has
remained absent.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties, perused the records.
8. The entire allegation goes against accused No.1, who
is said to be fell in love with the respondent No.2-complainant.
Accused No.1 promised the complainant to get married her and
thereafter, he married petitioner No.1 (accused No.6).
Petitioner No.2 (accused No.10) is the father of Petitioner No.1
and petitioner No.3 is the brother of Petitioner No.1. There is
no allegation against all these petitioners for having cheated
the complainant. The entire allegation goes against accused
NC: 2024:KHC:15883
No.1. Petitioner No.1 is said to be married accused No.1 after
refusal of the marriage with the complainant. Except a stray
sentence that the petitioners herein abused respondent No.2-
complainant in filthy language, there is nothing to investigate in
the matter. In view of the judgment in the case of Venkatesh,
cited supra, if the two adults were having sexual affair and the
marriage was not done, it cannot be brought under Section 420
of IPC. Hence, conducting investigation against the petitioners
is abuse of process of law and therefore, is liable to be
quashed.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The
FIR in Crime No.112/2022, registered by the HAL police station,
against petitioners Nos.6, 10 and 13 pending on the file of IV
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, is
hereby is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CS
CT:SK
