Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 33398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION NO. 8686 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MUJAHID PASHA S/O LATE ANWAR PASHA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O NO.52/B, E-29TH CROSS NEAR NOORANI MASJID 5TH MAIN, ILYAS NAGAR J P NAGAR BENGALURU-560 079.
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO HEBBAL P.S.
REPTD BY HCGP HIGH COURT BUILDING Digitally signed by BANGALORE-560001.
BHAVANI BAI G L Co oc ua rt ti o on f: Hig h 2. SMT RESHMA SULTANA Karnataka W/O MASOOD BIHARI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/O 30, 9TH CROSS MANURAYAN PALYA SULTAN PALYA R T NAGAR POST BANGALORE-79.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN VIDE ANNX-A,F CR.NO.33/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 376, 384, 506 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE I ADDL.
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAJISTRATE, BANGALORE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1-State.
Issuing notice to respondent No.2 is hereby dispensed with.
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime No.33/2022 registered by the Hebbal Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 376, 384, 506 of IPC.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and respondent No.2 said to be had intimacy between them and she was a married woman. During their affairs, the petitioner took some nude photographs belong to respondent No.2 and threatening her that he will upload the same in the social media and he had intercourse with her and also extracted Rs.4.00 lakhs after demanding Rs.6.00 lakhs. After receiving the complaint, the Police registered the FIR which is under challenge.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner and respondent No.2 had illegal intimacy between them. Respondent No.2 herself sent the nude photographs belongs to her through mobile phone and both of them are adult. Therefore, the offence of rape and extortion of money does not arise. Hence, prayed for quashing the FIR. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader objected the petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the memo along with some photographs pertaining to respondent No.2 and the petitioner, where they are nude photos.
6. The very allegation against this petitioner itself is that he is keeping the nude photos of respondent No.2 and he is blackmailing her for money by demanding Rs.10.00 lakhs, out of which, Rs.4.00 lakhs has been already paid for deleting the photos. In spite of it, he has not deleted the photos and still demanding remaining Rs.6.00 lakhs from respondent No.2. The production of the very nude photographs of respondent No.2 reveals that this petitioner is still having the photographs of the respondent No.2 with him.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view, it is not a fit case for staying the proceedings and also not a fit case for quashing the investigation at this stage.
8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to approach after filing the charge-sheet.
