IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Samantha Christina Delfina Willis, W/O Syed Ali Hindustani D/O David James Willis Afc. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka Represented By Its Secretary – Respondent
Writ Petition No.24602 of 2021 (GM-RES)
Decided on : 01-06-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 419, 420, 380, 384, 389, 506 read with Section 34 - Punishment for criminal intimidation- Punishment for extortion - Theft in dwelling house, etc. - Punishment for criminal breach of trust - Punishment for cheating by personation - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Petitioner is the wife of 5th respondent/complainant. Through a website named Elite Matrimony the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent got married - Wife/1st petitioner travels to the matrimonial house at Hyderabad. It is alleged that wife was tortured by the husband/5th respondent barely five days after marriage - Whether the subject writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable at the hands of a power of attorney holder of an accused - Whether the writ petition suffers from suppression of material facts entailing dismissal of the petition - Whether in the facts of the case the offences alleged would meet their ingredients – Held, in the said rejoinder the petitioners admit that the power of attorney was executed before a notary public in United Kingdom - It is also submitted that the petitioners had approved the draft - Therefore, the power of attorney being executed at Bangalore and notarized at United Kingdom is not in dispute. The petitioner No.1 has filed an affidavit of declaration which is for the first time stating that in view of travel restrictions due to COVID-19 the power of attorney was handed over to a family friend and has also sought to defend the allegations made in the complaint. But there is no whisper about the afore-narrated facts and events that have been suppressed by the petitioners while filing the present petition. Therefore, there can be no doubt that the petitioners are guilty of approaching this Court with unclean hands and such petitions should be thrown to the winds by imposition of exemplary costs. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioners are guilty of misleading the Court, the petition is to be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merit of the claim - Writ Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
The petitioners being aggrieved by the proceedings in Crime No.216 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 380, 384, 389, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore have approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The petitioners who are daughter and mother respectively are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the said crime.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-
The 1st petitioner is the wife of 5th respondent/complainant. Through a website named Elite Matrimony the 1st petitioner and the 5th respondent got married on 06-06-2021. On 09-06-2021 the wife/1st petitioner travels to the matrimonial house at Hyderabad. It is alleged that from 12-06-2021 the wife was tortured by the husband/5th respondent barely five days after marriage. On 11-07-2021 the wife flies to her ancestral house at Kolkata. On 17-07-2021 the complainant and his parents appear to have travelled to Kolkata to persuade the 1st petitioner to come back to Bangalore. Not acceding to the request, both the petitioners flew to London, United Kingdom. On 14-11-2021 the petitioners returned to Kolkata for seeking annulment of marriage. By then, the 5th respondent/husband had registered the complaint before the Police at Bangalore on 11-11-2021. Based on the crime so registered in Crime No.216 of 2021 for the aforesaid offences, the respondent/police sought to arrest the 1st petitioner. On 19-11-2021 a transit bail was sought and granted to the petitioners by the Court at Kolkata. After the grant of such transit bail, the petitioners come to the City of Bangalore and filed the subject petition on 23-12-2021 seeking annulment of proceedings in Crime No.216 of 2021.
3. The complainant alleges in the complaint that the 1st petitioner after marriage had taken all the jewellery of his mother stating that she requires them for a photo shoot as she liked ethnic Indian jewels and had not returned the same. Further allegation is that an amount of Rs.7.5 crores was transferred to the account of the 1st petitioner as on deceit she has induced the 5th respondent to shell out with the money on the ground that a property is being purchased in their joint names. The complainant also alleges that the petitioners were not even Muslims and have posed themselves as Muslims but they were in fact Christians. On the said complaint, crime in Crime No.216 of 2021 is registered. The moment crime is registered the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition.
4. Heard Sri S. Ajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Vivek Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the 5th respondent/ complainant.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a pure matrimonial dispute is sought to be given a colour of crime and also the dispute is purely civil in nature. The allegations made in the complaint, even if taken to be true, would not make out an offence against the petitioners. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have taken away the jewels belonging to the complainant and some money has been transferred from the account of the complainant to the account of the 1st petitioner. These are during subsistence of marriage and, therefore, no criminality can be attached to any of the allegations made in the complaint. He would submit that there is no misappropriation of any funds as the property is registered in the names of both the 1st petitioner and the complainant. The learned counsel would further submit that none of the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC can even be made in the case at hand as there is no inducement for purchase of property by the 1st petitioner on the complainant
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.