Karnataka High Court
Shakila Willis vs State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2024
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 19.04.2024
Pronounced on : 05.07.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
REVIEW PETITION NO.583 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION No.24602 OF 2021 (GM - RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.20751 OF 2022 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.13834 OF 2022 (GM - RES)
IN REVIEW PETITION 583 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SHAKILA WILLIS
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
D/O DAVID JAMES WILIS AFC
NOW AT No.82, BANMALIPUR ROAD
KASOBKUNJU, BANMALIPUR
BARASAT, CALCUTTA CENTRAL
WEST BENGAL - 700 124.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NO.2, ALI ASKER ROAD
VASANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 051.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR
HENNUR POLICE STATION
SERVICE ROAD, BALACHANDRA LAYOUT
BABUSAPALYA, HENNUR GARDENS
BENGALURU - 560 043.
4. MR.VASANTH KUMAR M.,
INSPECTOR
HENNUR POLICE STATION
SERVICE ROAD, BALACHANDRA LAYOUT
BABUSAPALYA, HENNUR GARDENS
BENGALURU - 560 043.
5. SYED ALI HINDUSTANI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O SYED KHAJA MOHIDDIN
RESIDING AT NO.704, 5TH 'D' CROSS,
HBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
ALSO AT:
BLOCK-E-G-007, RAMKY TOWERS
GACHIBOWLI, HYDERABAD - 500 032.
3
6. SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
W/O SYED ALI HINDUSTANI
D/O DAVID JAMES WILLIS AFC
NOW AT 79, ARRAN ROAD, STAMFORD
UNITED KINGDOM PE9 2XT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR THE R-1 TO R-4;
SRI K.G.KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215, 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ORDER
XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CR.P.C., (a) CALL FOR RECORD AND REVIEW
BY RECALLING OR MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 01/06/2022
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.
24602/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-B IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES STATED IN THE PETITION; (B) RESTORE THE
WRIT PETITION NO. 24602/2021 FILED BY WRIT PETITIONER
BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THAT
THE SAID WRIT PETITION BE LISTED FOR HEARING ON MERITS,
AND (C) PASS SUCH ORDERS AS THE HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM
FIT TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT PETITION No.20751 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. MS. SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
W/O SYED ALI HINDUSTANI
NOW AT 79, ARRAN ROAD, STAMFORD
UNITED KINGDOM PE9 2XT.
4
2. MRS. SHAKILA WILLIS
W/O DAVID JAMES WILLIS
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NOW AT NO.82
BANAMALIPUR ROAD
KASOB KUNJO BANAMALIPUR
BARASAT, CALCUTTA CENTRAL
WEST BENGAL - 700 124.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HENNUR POLICE STATION
HENNUR POLICE STATION
SERVICE ROAD, BALACHANDRA LAYOUT
BABUSAPALYA, HENNUR GARDENS
BENGALURU - 560 043
REPRESENTED BY
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU.
2. MR. SYED ALI HINDUSTANI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O SYED KHAJA MOHIDDIN
RESIDING AT NO.704, 5TH D CROSS
HBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 043.
ALSO AT:
RESIDING AT
BLOCK-A1, G2
RAMKY TOWERS
HYDERABAD - 500 032.
... RESPONDENTS
5
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI K.G.KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 19.08.2022 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.27011/2022 APPENDED AT
ANNEXURE-D AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE FIR
REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.0216/2021 THE CHARGESHEET DTD
05.07.2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE ON 19.08.2022 IN
C.C.NO.27011/2022 AND THE ORDER DTD 19.02.2022 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE ISSUING NON-BAILABLE WARRANT
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
IN WRIT PETITION No.13834 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MRS. SHAKILA WILLIS
W/O DAVID JAMES WILLIS,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NOW AT NO.82,
BANAMALIPUR ROAD,
KASOB KUNJO,
BANAMALIPUR,
BARASAT, CALCUTTA CENTRAL
WEST BENGAL - 700 124.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
6
BY HENNUR POLICE STATION,
HENNUR POLICE STATION,
SERVICE ROAD,
BALACHANDRA LAYOUT,
BABUSAPALYA,
HENNUR GARDENS,
BENGALURU - 560 043
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU.
2. MR.SYED ALI HINDUSTANI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O SYED KHAJA MOHIDDIN,
RESIDING AT NO.704,
5TH D CROSS, HBR LAYOUT,
KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
ALSO AT:
RESIDING AT
BLOCK-A1, G2,
RAMKY TOWERS,
HYDERABAD - 500 032.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI K.G.KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17.11.2021 PASSED
BY THE 4TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.0216/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
7
ORDERS ON 19.04.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Three of these petitions are between the same parties. They
call in question different stages of proceedings before the
concerned Court. Before embarking upon noticing the facts, I deem
it appropriate to notice the protagonists of the crime and their
relationship between themselves. One Syed Ali Hindustani is the
complainant, husband of accused No.1 and son-in-law of accused
No.2. Facts obtaining in each of these cases sans their details would
be narrated hereunder:
2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 had approached this Court in Writ
Petition No.24602 of 2021 calling in question the crime so
registered against them in Crime No.216 of 2021 for offences
punishable under Sections 380, 384, 389, 406, 419, 420, 506 r/w
34 of the IPC. This Court declined to interfere at the stage of crime
in terms of its order dated 01-06-2022. The said order is not
challenged, but the petitioners have chosen to file a review petition
seeking review of the order on certain grounds in Review Petition
No.583 of 2022. The consideration of the said Review Petition would
be independently done after consideration of the prayer sought in
the companion petitions.
3. Writ Petition No.13834 of 2022 is preferred calling in
question an order dated 17-11-2021 which directed conduct of
search to be done on 19-11-2021 in the residence of the accused.
This petition though preferred on 08-07-2022, it is after the order
that is passed in Writ Petition No.24602 of 2021 dismissing the
petition at the stage of crime. After the dismissal of the said writ
petition, the Police on completion of conduct of investigation, have
filed a charge sheet against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate
in terms of his order dated 19-08-2022 has taken cognizance of the
offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 384, 506, 186, 353
r/w 34 of the IPC and directed issuance of NBW to be returnable on
a particular date. The order of taking cognizance along with filing
of the charge sheet is what forms the challenge in Writ Petition
No.20751 of 2022 for it having been filed on 13-10-2022. In the
light of the order passed by this Court rejecting the petition at the
stage of crime in Writ Petition No.24602 of 2021 and the
subsequent action of the prosecution having filed a charge sheet
against the petitioners, facts obtaining in Writ petition No.20751 of
2022 would be considered.
4. Sans details, facts in brief germane are as follows:
4.1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 06-06-2021, the
1st petitioner/accused No.1 gets married to the complainant as per
customs prevailing under the Mohammedan law. It appears that
after the marriage the couple began to reside at Hyderabad. It is
the case of the complainant that accused No.1 refused to produce a
caste certificate before the Muthavalli to demonstrate that she was
a Muslim by religion on the score that the certificate is in London
and that the mother and the daughter had directly come from
Dubai to Bangalore. The marriage proposal was accepted by the
complainant through a website by name Elite Matrimony. It is the
further case of the prosecution that accused No.1 later places a
request to the mother of the complainant to give all her jewellery
which comprised of certain ethnic jewels for the purpose of a photo
shoot.
4.2. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 09-07-
2021 accused No.1, on the pretext of a visit to her aunt's place,
leaves the matrimonial house to return back on 11-07-2021. It then
transpires that accused No.1 takes off to Calcutta instead of
returning back home. On 17-07-2021 the complainant and his
parents go to Calcutta to persuade her to come back which is said
to have failed. Accused No.1 then, on the ground that she has to
return the official laptop to her office at London seeks to travel to
London and also for additional reason of getting her certificate
depicting her to be a Muslim. Accused No.1 leaves to London on
26-07-2021. It is the case of the complainant that his mother
requested the jewellery to be returned from the hands of the
daughter-in-law. The same was not done on the ground that the
mother of accused No.1 has forgotten the same to get it from
Calcutta. After a few days, it is narrated in the complaint, that the
mother of accused No.1 mentioned that Samantha, accused No.1
had mistakenly carried the jewels to London.
4.3. The complainant is said to have realized that there is
something fishy and game being played by the mother and the
daughter/accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively on him and his mother.
Later, it appears that accused No.1 had booked a property in
London for a sum of `7.5 crores and indicated to the complainant
that she had paid an advance amount of 10% and if she does not
pay the other 10% before 30-08-2021, the first installment would
be forfeited. It is then, the complainant transfers `78,71,228/- into
the account of accused No.1. The complainant later is said to have
discovered that petitioners were not Muslims by religion and they
have deceived him on Elite matrimony website depicting them to be
Muslims and have defrauded the complainant and his family. It is
then, the complaint comes to be registered against the petitioners
on 11-11-2021.
4.4. As observed hereinabove, the moment FIR comes to be
registered against the petitioners, they had knocked at the doors of
this Court in Writ Petition No.24602 of 2021 which comes to be
dismissed on 01-06-2022. After the dismissal of the petition, the
Police have filed a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet and the
act of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance is what has driven
the petitioners/accused 1 and 2 to this Court in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri Ajesh
Kumar S would vehemently contend that the marriage that took
place on 06-06-2021 was all fine up to October, 2021. It his case
that there are certain whatsapp chats which are appended to the
charge sheet which show cordial relationship between the
protagonists of the crime and the money that was transferred to
the account of the wife/accused No.1 was a gift from the hands of
the husband/complainant and, therefore, these matters which are
purely arising out of a dispute in the family are given a colour of
crime. It is his case that ingredients of Section 406 or 420 of the
IPC are completely absent in the case at hand, as there is no
intention right from the inception to cheat the complainant by
accused No.1. It is further submitted that the Police have seized all
the jewellery from the hands of accused No.1 as could be gathered
from the documents appended to the charge sheet on 19-11-2021
itself. He would seek to place reliance on several judgments of the
Apex Court and this Court which would all bear consideration qua
their relevance in the course of the order.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the
respondents would refute the submissions of the petitioners to
contend that accused No.1 and the complainant got married on
06-06-2021. The marriage was proposed and accepted all through a
matrimony website called Elite matrimony. In the said website the
petitioners had projected themselves as Muslims, as the
complainant is a Muslim. Date of marriage was fixed to be on 06-
06-2021 at 6.30 p.m. as per Islamic rituals in the presence of a
Muthavalli. It is the narration in the complaint and the finding in
the charge sheet that the Muthavalli had insisted on the certificate
of caste to be shown which was brushed aside by accused Nos. 1
and 2 on the score that the certificate is in London. It is his
submission that the certificate was necessary to be produced to
demonstrate that accused No.1 is a Muslim in view of her name
being Samantha Christina Delfina Willis.
6.1. The learned counsel would further contend that
immediately after the marriage, jewels of the complainant's mother
were taken away on the pretext of a photo-shoot, all of which are
not recovered and an amount of `78.71 lakhs was transferred to
the account of accused No.1 again on the pretext that she had
booked a flat in London. The learned counsel would contend that
all these would clearly show that it is a case of cheating right from
the inception, as the petitioners admittedly were not Muslims but
did pose themselves to be Muslims from Bangladesh.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts, link of chain of events and the
dates of such events are all a matter of record and as such they
would not require any regurgitation. The entire issue sprang from
the complaint. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the
complaint. The complaint so registered reads as follows:
From: Date: 11-11-2021
Syed Ali Hindustani (28 Years)
S/o. Syed Khaja Mohiddin
No. 704, 5th D Cross, HBR Layout,
Kalyan Nagar,
Bangalore 560 043
(9535259007)
To:
The Station House Officer,
Hennur Police Station,
Hennur, Bangalore - 560 043
Sir,
Sub: Complaint against Smt. Samantha Cristina Delfina
Willis (26) and Smt. Shakila Willis (56) No.82,
Banamalipur Road, Kasobkunju, Banamalipur, Barasat,
Calcutta-700 124- for Fraud, Cheating and Theft
1) I am a resident of the above address along with my
parents for the last six years. My parents had registered
in M/s Elite Matrimony for getting a suitable alliance for
my wedding with a Muslim girl. The executive of M/s Elite
Matrimony connected us to Mrs Shakila Willis from
London. She spoke to our parents several times and
informed about her daughter Samantha Christina
Delphina Willis. She informed that Samantha is a BSC
Mathematical Physics graduate from Edinburg University
and working as a data scientist in M/s Openreach, which
is part of British Telecom. She further informed that her
husband David Willis is a British National and was working
in British Air Force and joined Gulf Airways as a Captain,
post retirement. Mrs. Shakila informed that she is a
Muslim and a Bangladesh national and holds Bangladesh
passport. Mrs. Shakila informed that she was working as
an air hostess in Gulf Airways and she met her husband
there and they got married and moved to Bahrain, where
Ms Samantha was born and later her earlier education
was completed there in the British schools. It was further
informed that Samantha is a British National and is a
Muslim as Mr. David also had converted during their
marriage as a Muslim and renamed as Dawood.
2) It was told by Ms Shakila that her husband Mr. David
Willis is 81 years old and has Alzheimer's and they had
decided to settle in India as they have their own home at
Kolkata. She also told that Sarnantha has visited India
several times and she has also decided to settle in India
by marrying an Indian and for this reason they registered
her name in the Indian Elite Matrimony- website.
3) We all decided to meet in Dubai to understand if this
alliance can be worked out as it happens in any arranged
Indian marriage as Samantha was coming to Dubai on
official work. We met Samantha and her parents on 3rd
April 2021 in Dubal. Later we invited them to Bangalore
and entire family stayed with us for 15 days. Exactly
during this time the lockdown was announced and
international travel got affected, hence, during the course
they all stayed in India and it was decided to get us both
married and accordingly as per the Muslim religious
methodologies we got married on 6 June 2021 at 6.30 PM
as per the wishes of Mrs. Shakila. During the marriage,
the Muthavalli(priest) insisted them to produce the caste
certificate to prove that they were Muslims by religion,
which they stated that it was kept in their London house
and they had not carried it with them, since they first
came to Dubai and then to India, but assured to procure
it shortly.
4) During the marriage, Samantha requested my mother to
give her jewelry for photo shoot purpose and she would
return it back as she liked ethnic Indian jewels. My
mother gave her various jewelry (as per annexure) to
Samantha. My Parents wanted to have a great celebration
of their only Son, limiting to the crowd as per Covid
protocol as there was a lock down during the planned
wedding date. However Samantha did not co- operate
and she insisted that very few people shall be present.
Despite informing her that as per Government Notification
the upper limit was 50 persons for a marriage, she did
not agree to invite anyone from outside the family and
firmly told that it can be only 12 persons. Since it was a
new beginning in life, we all agreed and the marriage
took place. Our plans of visiting our relatives after the
marriage was also cut short and we had to leave to
Hyderabad on the second day of our marriage, as per her
choice. She carried all the jewelry along with her to
Hyderabad.
5) During our stay at Hyderabad she made me spend huge
amounts for her gifts and upgradation of the home. All
along she was always making enquiry about assets in my
name and to show her the bank details and also to get
her a credit card. Many times she was requesting to share
the password and PIN number of my Bank accounts which
I carefully avoided to pass on to her and on this account
she was very angry on me and was abusive to me on a
day to day basis. She was also saying that she will hack
all my accounts and I thought it was a joke.
6) On 9th of July 2021 Samantha told me that she needs to
visit her auntie's house in Hyderabad and went. On 11th of
July 2021, she asked us to organize for a car and instead
of coming home she went straight to the airport and from
there to Kolkata. This was a surprise and shocking for all
of us. Several attempts were made by me and my
parents asking her to come back from Airport, but she
refused. On the 17th of July 2021, myself along with my
parents went to Kolkata to persuade her and to bring her
back to Bangalore. Several attempts by parents and
myself failed. She said since she was using the official
laptop of her office, she had to return the same to her
employer she would return back in a month. She also
informed that she will bring the caste certificate to prove
that they all were Muslims by religion and it was kept in
her home in London. We believed and we had to permit
her.
7) Accordingly, Samantha visited Bengaluru on 24.07.2021 and
stayed with me and she left to London on 26.07.2021
from my house. Before she left, my mother requested
Samantha to return back the jewelry which was given to
her for wearing only for the photo shoot during the
marriage. Samantha told that she had forgotten to bring
and it was with her mother at Kolkata and she will return
it back. After some days when we enquired with the
mother Smt. Shakila about the jewelry, she said that her
daughter Samantha had mistakenly carried it to London.
We were shocked to learn that both mother and daughter
were playing fraud by mis-information about the return of
jewelry of my mother. We did not take any action
immediately since we were hoping everything will be fine.
8) After reaching London, She kept on telling and
emotionally pressuring that she had booked an Apartment
Property at a cost of 7,20,000 Pounds (Rs. 7.5 Cr) in
Kings Road, London by paying 10% and she is due to pay
the second installment of 10% before 30.8.2021. If she
fails to pay the 2nd Installment the builder will forfeit her
initial down payment of 10%. Therefore, on the guise of
saving that amount, she induced me to immediately make
arrangements for the 2nd installment and she assured
that she will register the property in our joint names. She
had not discussed about arrangement of money by us
while she was in India. She went on calling me and
pressurizing me to make necessary arrangements and
this was also assured by her mother Smt. Shakila. In
order to save the marriage and believing their
statements, I borrowed huge amount from my friends
and relatives and transferred Rs. 78,71,228.00 to
Samantha's account through the ICICI bank account in
Bangalore as follows
Date Amount in Rs. In the name of
23.8.21 75,59,835.71 Samantha through
ICICI foreign transfer
including taxes
24.8.21 3,11,392.42 Samantha through
ICICI foreign transfer
including taxes
Total 78,71,228.10 The Bank Statements
are attached.
9) I state that Samantha has blackmailed me and induced
me to transfer huge amounts to her mother's account
failing which she would return back to London. The
amounts forcibly obtained from me during pre marriage
and post marriage also are as follows:
Date Amount in Rs. In the name of
4.5.21 89,000-00 Shakila Willis
7.7.21 75,005.90 Shakila Willis
9.8.21 1,50,017.70 Shakila Willis
TOTAL 3,14,023.60
Date Amount in Rs. In the name of
12.8.2021 1,46,440-00 Samantha Through a
friend Mr. Masood's
Account (taken as a
loan)
30.8.2021 2,05,520-00 -Do-
13.9.2021 1,44,830-00 -Do-
Total 4,96,790-00
GRAND TOTAL OF MONEY RS.85,18,035.80
TRANSFERRED
10) After receipt of the amount, I requested her to send me
the copies of the documents, agreement, and receipt of
the amount in respect of the property for my signature
and she went on giving excuses. My request to send at
least the scanned copies by email in respect of the
Property documents and the caste certificate to prove
that they were Muslims by religion was not accepted and
she deliberately avoided to speak on the subject and she
started threatening to file a case against me in London if I
insisted to return the money.
11) At this stage I realized that Samantha, and her
mother have jointly conspired and hatched a plot
systematically to commit acts of impersonation,
fraud, cheating, extortion and theft with an
intention of making unlawful gain for themselves
and causing unlawful loss to me and my family. I
started verifying the details furnished by them from the
beginning and I have now procured the copies of the Sale
Deeds related to their residential apartment in Kolkata
which are in the individual name of Smt. Shakila Willis
and her husband Sri. David Willis. I was shocked to see
that as per the sale deed that Smt. Shakila is a Christian
and she has claimed that her nationality is Indian, as on
06.11.2017 further in the same document she has further
claimed that she is a Hindu by religion and Samantha's
father David Willis is also a Christian and claimed that he
was a resident of Abudhabi, UAE as on 08.08.2013. I am
herewith furnishing copy of the said sale deeds for your
kind perusal.
12) Thus, the said Smt. Shakila Willis and her daughter Ms
Samantha have indulged in activities of impersonation by
making us believe that they are Muslims by religion and
contracted the marriage with me by fraudulent means
and taken the jewelry of my mother without her
permission, and indulged in an activity of cheating and
dishonestly induced to get the delivery of amount by
fraud. They have also committed an act of criminal
breach of trust by gaining our confidence in the guise of
entering into a false marriage and thereby using the
relation for getting the money transferred to her account
with an intention to make unlawful gain for themselves
and cause unlawful loss to me and my family. I state that
I would not have got into the marriage with Samantha if I
had come to know that they were not Muslims by religion
and I would not have transferred any money to her if not
for the relation of husband and wife between us and her
promise of making me a Joint owner in the proposed
purchase of property for which I transferred the amount.
13) Samantha has intentionally, knowingly used her
computer with her hacking skills has breached my
privacy by hacking my data, passwords, deleting
important data of evidence I had in my cloud. It is
requested to kindly seek the help of Cyber Crime
Department for the offence and crime committed by
Samantha. Samantha's Mother is also, aware of these
criminal acts being done by Samantha. She has
committed an offence of extortion while putting me in
a sense of fear of imminent threat to my life. Samantha
has Blackmailed me through her mail ON 9.10.21 to my
father stating that I would be arrested and she would put
me into deep trouble and threaten to my life if we don't
pay her Rs. 20 Crore Rupees as settlement amount.
Samantha's mother Mrs Shakila Willis kept on
pressurizing jointly to reply to the mail and act as per the
mail.
14) Mrs Shakila Willis have committed acts of criminal
conspiracy by deliberately concealing her true identity
before the Statutory authorities and also violation of
provisions of FRRO as can be seen the sale deed in their
names. Though she has not completed her graduation,
she has falsely projected herself as a Professor in order to
falsely project herself in the LinkedIn website. It is
reliably learnt that both of them by adopting similar
modus operandi have carried on similar acts on different
persons in order to make unlawful gain for themselves.
Therefore, I sincerely once again request you to register
a complaint against fraud, mis-appropriation,
Impersonation, Theft of our family belongings, breach of
trust, black mailing, threat to my life and breach of my
privacy and initiate suitable action as per law against
them."
The Police, after investigation, have filed a charge sheet for the
offences afore-quoted. Column No.7 of the charge sheet so filed
against accused Nos. 1 and 2 reads as follows:
"¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ºÉtÆÚgÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À ºÉZïDgï©Dgï ¯ÉÃOmï
£ÀA.704 gÀ°è ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸Á-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ,
EAf¤AiÀÄgï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸Á-4 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ §AiÉÆÃqÉÃmÁªÀ£ÀÄß J¯ÉÊmï ªÀiÁånæªÉƤAiÀįï£À°è
£ÉÆAzÀt ªÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ. J-2 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄÄ ¸Á-4 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀgɪÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ£À£ÄÀ ß
£ÁªÀÅ §AiÉÆÃqÉmÁzÀ°è £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ, £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ EµÀÖªÁVzÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ M¥ÀÄàªÀÅzÁzÀgÉ
MªÉÄä ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁqÉÆÃt JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ J-1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ §AiÉÆÃqÉmÁ, ¥ÉÆmÉÆêÀ£ÄÀ ß
PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Á-4 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁwUÉ M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸Á-1, ¸Á-4, ¸Á-5
gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ zÀĨÉÊUÉ ºÉÆÃV J-1 J-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ qÉëqï «°è¸ï
gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è vÁªÀÅ ªÀÄĹèA zsÀªÀðzÀªÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, PÉÆ®ÌvÁÛzÀ°è ªÀÄ£É
EgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÉñÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV J-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÄÀ
¸Á-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ §gÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è w½¹ ¤ªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ªÀ£ÄÀ ß
£ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý J-1 J-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ qÉëqï
«°è¸ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:08-04-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ
ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀ£ÁrzÀÄÝ, vÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ EµÀÖªÁVzÉ DzÀgÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ ¤ªÀÄä
¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ/PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÀArµÀ£ï ºÁQzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:06-
06-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ºÉUÀΣÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ «Aqï ¥ÀèªÀgï ¥ÁæPÀÈw gɸÁmïð£À°è ªÀÄĹèA
¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉ «ªÁºÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è
¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÀqɬÄAzÀÄ 10-12 d£À ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ªÁºÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ ªÀiÁgÀ£Éà ¢£ÀªÉà vÀ£Àß ¸ÀA§A¢üUÀ¼ÄÀ
ºÉÊzÁæ¨Ázï£À°ègÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ:11-07-2021 gÀAzÀÄ J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀgɪÀiÁr ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄvÉÛãÉ
JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ w½¸ÀzÉà PÉÆ®ÌvÁÛUÉ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Á-1 ¸Á-4
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀÄ J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÉÆ®ÌvÁÛUÉ
ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, vÁ£ÀÄ ®AqÀ£ïUÉ ºÉÆÃV PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ gÁfãÁªÉÄ PÉÆlÄÖ §gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ
¨sÀgÀªÀ¸É PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸Á-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA©PÉÆAqÀÄ
§A¢gÀÄvÁÛ¼É. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:24-07-2021 gÀAzÀÄ J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ
§A¢gÀÄvÁÛ¼É F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß vÁ¬ÄUÉ RaðUÉ ºÀt«®è vÀ£Àß
CPËAmï¤AzÀ mÁæ£ïì¥Àgï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀÄwÛ®è ¤£Àß CPËAmï¤AzÀ mÁæ£ïì¥Àgï ªÀiÁqÀÄ JAzÀÄ
w½¹zÁUÀ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÄÀ vÀ£Àß CPËAmï¤AzÀ J-2 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï §gÉÆÃqÀ
¨ÁåAPï CPËAmï £ÀA 27400100012225 UÉ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ J-1
DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:26-07-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ®AqÀ£ïUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸Á-5
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ CfÓUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 60 ®PÀë ¨É¯É¨Á¼ÀĪÀ a£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀdæzÀ
D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆà vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV w½¹ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ ¸Á-1, ¸Á-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀÄ J-2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ §½ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀÄÝ,
ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ, ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ J-1
DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀgɪÀiÁr vÁ£ÀÄ ®AqÀ¤ß£À QAUïì gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄ£É Rjâ
ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, EzÀPÉÌ ¢£ÁAPÀ:30-08-2021 gÉƼÀUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀlÖ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. E®èªÉAzÀgÉ
FUÁUÀ¯Éà dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ºÀt ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹ CªÀjAzÀ
78 ®PÀë 71 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 228 gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ L¹L¹L ¨ÁåAPï CPËAmï £ÀA
029801526261 jAzÀ ®AqÀ£ï£À°ègÀĪÀ J-1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¨ÁgïPÉèÃ¸ï ¨ÁåAPï CPËAmï £ÀA
A/c No 93286207 SWIFTBIC BUKBGB22, IBAN
GB7620292393286207 UÉ 78 ®PÀëzÀ 71 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 228 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ
ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Á-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§gïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁèPïªÉÄïï
ªÀiÁr ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¤°è¹zÀÝjAzÀ ¸Á-1 ¸Á-4 ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀÄ J-2 DgÉÆævÉUÉ
J-1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ Rað£À°èAiÉÄà ®AqÀ£ïUÉ
PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, J-2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸Á-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-5 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀgɪÀiÁr ¸ÀªÀÄAvÁ½UÉ ¤ªÀÄä
ªÀÄUÀ ¸ÀjºÉÆAzÀÄwÛ®è. «ªÁºÀ gÀzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÉÆît JAzÀÄ w½¹zÁUÀ ¸Á-1, ¸Á-4 ¸Á-5
gÀªÀjUÉ J-1 J-2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À §AzÀÄ CªÀgÀ §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV J-1
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄĹèA zsÀªÀÄðzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À®è JAzÀÄ w½zÀħAzÀÄ F §UÉÎ J-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
J-2 gÀªÀgÀ°è PÉýzÁUÀ vÁ£ÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ rªÉÇøïð PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀgÉ 20 PÉÆÃn ºÀt PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ
E®èªÉAzÀgÉ ®AqÀ¤ß£À°è ¤ªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV ¨ÁèPïªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀiÁr
¢£ÁAPÀ: 09-10-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ J-1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸Á-1, ¸Á-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¸Á-3 gÀªÀjUÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ;19-01-2021
gÀAzÀÄ ¸Á-12 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¸ÀZïðªÁgÉAmï ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸Á-8 ¸Á-9
¸Á-10 ¸Á-11 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£ÉUÁV DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «¼Á¸ÀPÌÉ
ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è J-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥Éưøï PÀvÀðªÀåPÌÉ
CrØ¥Àr¹ ¸Á-10 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-11 gÀªÀjUÉ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖzÄÀ Ý,
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À jÃvÁå ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ gÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ."
A perusal at the charge sheet, prima facie, is indicative of the fact
that the complainant was misled into the marriage on the score that
accused Nos. 1 and 2 were Muslims. If the petitioners do not
belong to Muslim religion, they ought not to have projected
themselves to be belonging to Muslim religion and they would
produce a certificate at a later point in time which never came
about. The later action of the mother and the daughter is also
indicative of the fact that there are certain jewels that were taken
away on any pretext whatsoever may be, were not returned. The
Police on 19-11-2021 after registration of crime have seized the
material.
9. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
complainant the entire jewels are not returned back. The further
action of transfer of `78/- lakhs into the account of accused No.1 is
a matter of record. The contention of the complainant is that it was
by a deceit that it was got transferred. The defence of the accused
is that it was given as a gift. It is also contended that it is
demonstrably a gift on the strength of a document that is appended
to the charge sheet. The learned counsel for the petitioners places
heavy reliance on the contents of whatsapp chats. All the contents
of whatsapp chats cannot ipso facto lead to quashment of charge
sheet filed against the petitioners. That would require examination
and cross-examination of witnesses for the contents of the chats in
whatsapp to be driven home or defended as the case would be. It
is trite law that proceedings which have now culminated in filing of
the charge sheet and the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of
the offence cannot be quashed on the basis of whatapp chats.
10. The projection of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that it is purely a matrimonial dispute and the said matrimonial
dispute has been deliberately given a colour of crime cannot be
accepted. Though in the first blush the issues between the husband
and the wife and the respective mother-in-laws are what is seen in
the periphery, a deeper delving into the matter would clearly
demonstrate that the accused will have to come out clean in a full
blown trial. The Police have after investigation and collection of
adequate material filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and
the charge sheet has been taken cognizance of by the learned
Magistrate. The trial is interdicted due to the orders of this Court.
Therefore, on a perusal of the contents of the charge sheet supra
would indicate that the case at hand is shrouded with maze of facts,
all of which would require trial, in the least.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners would place
reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
MOHMOOD ALI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in 2023
SCC OnLine SC 950. In the said judgment the Apex Court has held
that the High Court is entitled to read the complaint between the
lines and gather real intention of the accused in the alleged crime.
This is exactly what this Court has undertaken in the case at hand
and found that it would not require interference at this stage, more
so, in the light of the fact that the Police after investigation have
filed a charge sheet even. Therefore, the said judgment would not
become applicable owing to the peculiarity obtaining in the facts of
the case at hand.
12. The second judgment relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is in the case of A.M. MOHAN v. STATE reported in
2024 SCC OnLine SC 339. The Apex Court considers what would
become ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC and has allowed a
criminal appeal which was ostensibly after conviction of the
appellant therein. The Apex Court was considering a case of
conversion of a purely civil dispute into criminal one, as the dispute
therein was between business circles. The said judgment also
would not be applicable to the case at hand, as the case at hand
does not project any civil dispute or other rivalry between the
parties. The case of the prosecution is plain and simple of the
offences that are narrated therein.
13. The third judgment relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioner is one rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.9026
of 2021 disposed on 08-09-2022. That was a case where the wife
had registered a complaint against the husband for offences
punishable under Section 498A, 323 and 506 of the IPC. As a
counter-blast to the said complaint the husband had registered a
private complaint against the wife in PCR No.11622 of 2021 for
offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 504 and 506 of the
IPC. This Court allowed the petition on the score that the husband
had registered a crime as a counter-blast and to wreak vengeance
against the wife. There was no substance for the offences so
alleged. This again would not lend any support to the petitioner.
14. The fourth judgment is the one in Criminal Petition
No.4871 of 2021 disposed of on 23-09-2022 preferred by the State
against an order of discharge discharging the accused wife. The
allegation therein was that the wife had forged the signature of the
husband and had drawn an amount of `5,89,000/- on 05-07-2011.
Discharge order had been passed on the ground that the wife was
in Switzerland between 02-07-2011 and 10-07-2011. The complaint
by the husband was that the wife had presented a cheque in person
on 05-07-2011. Owing to impossibility of the presence of the wife
on 05-07-2011 the discharge order had been passed in favour of
the wife. The challenge to that is rejected by this Court. This again
would not come to the aid of the petitioner.
15. The fifth judgment relied on by the learned counsel for
the petitioners is in Criminal Petition No.521 of 2022 disposed of on
10-05-2022. This again was for offences punishable under Sections
498A and 307 of the IPC registered by the wife against the
husband. This also would not lend any support to the case of
accused No.1 or even accused No.2 in the case at hand. Therefore,
none of the judgments that are relied on by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners would lend any assistance to the facts
of the case on hand, as they are peculiar enough warranting full
blown trial.
16. As observed hereinabove, the facts and link in the chain
of events though they have happened only within a time frame of
four months are undoubtedly a maze. Plethora of documents are
collected by the prosecution which form part of the charge sheet;
not for nothing did the investigation take place and led to filing of
the charge sheet. If interference is made at this stage by this Court,
it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1 wherein the
Apex Court has held as follows:
"9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that
in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal
proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted
that when the High Court in exercise of powers under
(2021) 9 SCC 35
Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by
the time the investigating officer after recording the
statement of the witnesses, statement of the
complainant and collecting the evidence from the
incident place and after taking statement of the
independent witnesses and even statement of the
accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the
learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147,
148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned
Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned
judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P.,
2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does
not appear that the High Court took into consideration the
material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even
the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482
CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations
in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered
and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is
required to be considered. However, thereafter when
the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and
the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the
investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different
footing and the Court is required to consider the
material/evidence collected during the investigation.
Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in
a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into
the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of
the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate
jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court
in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai
Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC
(Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents
of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court
cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the
powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held
that that question is required to be examined keeping in view,
the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring
no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate
evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from
contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further
observed it is more so, when the material relied on is
disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation,
it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such
stage to probe and then of the court to examine
questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such
material as to how far and to what extent reliance can
be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this
Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this
Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to
quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is
further observed that inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised
sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such
exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the
section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of
evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482
CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind
Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet,
(2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and
in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1
SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of
the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider
the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations
which are required to be gone into and considered at the time
of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which
have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High
Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the
document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta
Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2
Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession
was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required
to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-
10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs
and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni
Devi and no reference to handing over the possession.
However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e.
27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out
of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is
a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs
25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish
during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said
document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the
joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required
to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25
lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference
to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered
document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations
which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The
High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material
collected during the investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court
that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC
is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has
noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is
seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is
required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the
High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has
failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the
accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC
with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even
according to the accused the possession was handed over to
them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as
mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed
and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2
lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were
handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can
be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage
to opine that no case is made out for the offence under
Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be
considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the
first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent
suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for
permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit
for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all
the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time
of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in
quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the
merits of the allegations as if the High Court was
exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting
the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers
under Section 482 CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that
original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is
made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on
record the power of attorney along with the counter filed
before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated
in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney
and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the
investigation and has recorded the statement of the
complainant, accused and the independent witnesses,
thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of
attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by
the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise
of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the
same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly
quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and
proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own
merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this
Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be
confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and
the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and
on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid
and without being influenced by any of the observations made
by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."
(Emphasis supplied)
17. The Apex Court in a later judgment in the case of
SUPRIYA JAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA2, has held as follows:
"16. This is a case where the charges have been framed
and the accused are awaiting trial. Having regard to the totality
of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the
considered opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps
are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous
(except to the extent we propose to mention before concluding
our judgment) that allowing the trial to progress might cause a
miscarriage of justice. This is also not an appropriate stage to
delve deep into the records. It is no part of the business of any
of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be,
conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that
the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the
allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of
investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to
form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is
indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to
be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law,
it would not be proper to scuttle it.
17. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to
quashing of a charge/proceedings either in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 397CrPC or Section 482CrPC or
together, as the case may be, has engaged the attention of this
Court many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is
unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one
decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the
precedents on the point, the principles have been summarised
by this Court succinctly. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander
[Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4
SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , this Court laid down
the following guiding principles : (SCC pp. 482-84, para 27)
"27. ... 27.1. Though there are no limits of the
powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the
more the power, the more due care and caution is to be
exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing
(2023) 7 SCC 711
criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in
terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very
sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest
of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether
the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of
the case and the documents submitted therewith prima
facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so
patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent
person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the
basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then
the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No
meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for
considering whether the case would end in conviction or not
at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely
essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for
correcting some grave error that might be committed by the
subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court
should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the
prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in
any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force
to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such
criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide
specific protection to an accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of
a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to
investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted
to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they
appeared from the record and documents annexed
therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a "civil
wrong" with no "element of criminality" and does not satisfy
the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be
justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the
court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the
evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts
have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts,
evidence and materials on record to determine whether
there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case
would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily
with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will
constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process
of court leading to injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called
upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence
collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it
is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim
and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim
is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint
cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into
consideration external materials given by an accused for
reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or
that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to
consider the record and documents annexed therewith by
the prosecution.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the
rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even
broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to
permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing
at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal
the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability
of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima
facie.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section
173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects,
the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a
charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where
the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of
the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it
may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex
debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for
administration of which alone, the courts exist.
***
27.16. These are the principles which individually
and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into
consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and
wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an
offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant
and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on
the premise that one or two ingredients have not been
stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial
compliance with the requirements of the offence."
18. Applying the broad principles as enunciated by this
Court, we hold that it is not one of those rare cases where the
uncontroverted allegations appearing from the materials on
record notwithstanding, it can successfully be contended that
even no prima facie opinion can be formed pointing to
commission of any offence by the petitioner. It is trite that the
conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the
offence to do which the conspiracy is entered into and that such
an offence, if actually committed, would be the subject-matter
of a separate charge. The allegations that the petitioner was
found counting the cash received by the principal accused from
the second respondent in the presence of a listed witness and
that she conspired with her sister, the principal accused, to
cheat and defraud the second respondent, persuade us to
record that involvement of the petitioner, howsoever limited,
cannot be ruled out at this stage and, therefore, the trial ought
to be permitted to proceed and she obliged to stand trial."
The Apex Court after considering the entire spectrum of law holds
that in a given case the order cannot be quashed merely because it
appears to be civil in nature. The accused had to stand trial.
18. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in KAPTAN
SINGH and SUPRIYA JAIN supra, I do not find any warrant of
interference at this stage of the proceedings. Leaving open the
liberty available to the petitioners on hand to avail the remedy at
the appropriate time before the appropriate fora in an appropriate
proceeding, Writ Petition No.20751 of 2022 stands rejected.
In the light of the dismissal of Writ Petition No.20751 of 2022 and
for the reasons indicated hereinabove, Writ Petition No.13834 of
2022 also stands dismissed.
19. A review petition is preferred by the petitioners seeking to
review the order dated 01-06-2022 rejecting Writ Petition No.24602
of 2021, referred to supra, on the score that certain observations
made in the order are an error on the face of the record. The
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the
order has to be reviewed as the foundation for imposition of costs
was erroneous. This Court has considered the contents of the
petition and the objections filed by the complainant at the time of
dismissing the writ petition. None of those contents in the order
would require review or re-look, as any order for review or re-look
of the matter would amount to re-hearing the matter right from the
word go which would not be within the parameters of the review as
held by the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VERMA v.
MAYAWATI3, wherein it is held as follows:
"21. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us
consider the claim of the petitioner and find out whether a case
has been made out for interference exercising review
jurisdiction.
22. Mr Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner, once again took us through various earlier orders
passed by this Court in respect of Taj Corridor Project and
submitted that even if there is any invalidity of investigation and
breach of mandatory provision, it is the duty of the Court
exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India to take necessary steps by ordering the investigating
agency to proceed further and take action in accordance with
law. For the same, he relied on the judgments of this Court in
H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi [AIR 1955 SC 196 : 1955 Cri LJ
526 : (1955) 1 SCR 1150] , SCR at p. 1164 and Vineet Narain v.
Union of India [(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 307] . From
H.N. Rishbud [AIR 1955 SC 196 : 1955 Cri LJ 526 : (1955) 1
SCR 1150] the following observation/conclusion is pressed into
service: (AIR p. 204, para 10)
"10. It does not follow, however, that the
invalidity of the investigation is to be completely
ignored by the court during trial. When the breach of
such a mandatory provision is brought to the
knowledge of the court at a sufficiently early stage,
the court, while not declining cognizance, will have to
take the necessary steps to get the illegality cured and
the defect rectified, by ordering such reinvestigation
as the circumstances of an individual case may call
for."
(2013) 8 SCC 320
In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and since what was
dismissed is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., I decline to
entertain the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition
stands dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed, as a
consequence.
Sd/-
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ
