Karnataka High Court
Miss Poornima Satish Kolambkar vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 May, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6966
CRL.P No. 101414 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101414 OF 2024 (482)
BETWEEN:
MISS POORNIMA SATISH KOLAMBKAR
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER IN PRIVATE SCHOOL,
R/O. NEAR GURUMATH, PO: NANDANGADA,
PADMANABHNAGAR, TALUK: KARWAR,
UTTARKANNADA-581304.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VENKATESH M.KHARVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PSI KARWAR RURAL POLICE STATION,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580008.
2. SMT. SURYA ANIL W/O. ANILKUMAR V.K,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCCU. HOUSEWIFE,
Digitally signed
R/O. C5, GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD,
by
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR COLONY, BINAGA, KARWAR,
Location: HIGH
MOHANKUMAR COURT OF
B SHELAR KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
UTTARA KANNADA, 581307.
BENCH
Date:
2024.05.13
11:14:40 +0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.KIRTILATA R.PATIL, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASHED THE REGISTRATION OF COMPLAINT AND FIR
IN KARWAR RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.44/2022 DATED 02.08.2022 FOR
THE OFFENCE U/S 406, 417 AND 420 OF IPC ON THE ADDL.SR.CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, KARWAR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6966
CRL.P No. 101414 of 2024
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner as
well as learned counsel for respondent.
2. This petition is filed to quash the complaint and FIR
which is registered in crime No.44/2022 before Karwar
Rural Police station. The complaint is dated 02.08.2022 for
the alleged offences under Section 406, 417 and 420 of
IPC.
3. The complaint in short would reveal that the accused
promised the complainant to secure the job for the
complainant's son and her close relatives in the Indian
Navy. It is further stated that the accused is working as a
teacher in Indian Navy. The complainant has stated in the
complaint that the amount is paid to the account of the
accused and she has stated that the amount is paid in
view of the promise made by the accused that she would
secure job to the complainant's son and her close
relatives. The details of payment and the bank account to
which the payments are made also forthcoming in the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6966
complaint. It is also further stated in the complaint that
jobs as promised are not secured and repayment is also
not made. The complaint is under investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that
more than 1 ½ years have lapsed since the complaint is
lodged. There is not progress in the investigation and
Police have not filed any report. He would also submit that
no offence is committed and if at all any dispute is relating
to payment, the remedy for complainant is to file civil suit.
He further submits that accused has not made payment.
In fact, her husband has made payment. Thus, police
could not have registered the FIR.
5. Learned Government advocate appearing for first
respondent would contend that the basic ingredient as
required under Section 420 are specifically mentioned in
the complaint and investigation is on since huge amount is
collected by the accused in her account. Investigation
requires time. No case is made out to stall the
investigation.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6966
6. Learned counsel Sri.Venkatesh Karve, appearing for
petitioner in support of his contentions has relied on the
judgment of coordinate bench of this Court in
Crl.P.No.4856/2021 and would submit that the dispute
being a civil dispute, criminal complaint against the
petitioner is not maintainable.
7. This court has taken into consideration the
contentions made by the learned counsel and perused the
records.
8. The receipt of the amount as mentioned in the
complaint by the petitioner is not in dispute. The amount
is paid through online. Though, learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that around Rs.8,00,000/- have
been repaid through online and balance amount paid
through cash, at this juncture, no material is placed on
record to substantiate the contention relating to
repayment.
9. It is forthcoming in the averment made in the
complaint that amount is paid pursuant to the promise
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6966
made by the accused to complainant that the job would be
secured to the complainant's son and her close relatives in
the Indian Navy. It is admitted fact that petitioner is
working as a teacher in the Indian Navy. It is also
admitted fact that jobs as promised are not secured.
Since, a promise is made and pursuant to promise there is
a delivery of property i.e. amount is transferred online,
this court is of the view that prima facie ingredient of
cheating is made out.
10. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the complainant has no locus standy to lodge
the complaint on the premise that complainant's husband
has made payment and not the complainant, merely
because the husband has made payment, it cannot be said
that the false promise is not made. It is quite apparent
that payment is made pursuant to the inducement made
to the complainant. This being the position, the contention
that the complainant has no locus standy cannot be
accepted.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:6966
11. As far as judgment of this Court is concerned, it is
noticed that the facts in the said judgment are totally
different. Hence, ratio laid down in the said judgment
cannot be applied to the present case. Since a huge
amount is collected online on the promise of job to the
complainant's son and her relatives, this court is of the
view that investigation cannot be stalled. Accordingly,
petition is dismissed.
12. It is relevant to note that the complaint is of the year
2022. The respondent-Police shall complete the
investigation as early as possible or within 6 months from
the date of receipt of the order and submit the report
based on the investigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HMB
