Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 39271
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
SHAKILA WILLIS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
RP 583 / 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI AJESH KUMAR S.
For the Respondents: SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, SRI K.G.KAMATH
The court upheld the FIR against the petitioners, emphasizing the necessity of a trial to examine serious allegations of fraud and misrepresentation, rejecting claims of the matter being purely civil.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 215, 226 and 227 - Criminal Procedure Code - Order under Section 482 - Review petition against dismissal of writ petition challenging FIR for offences under IPC - Petitioners alleged to have misrepresented their religion and engaged in fraud - Court declined to quash proceedings, emphasizing the need for a full trial based on evidence presented. (Paras 1, 10, 16, 19)
(B) Criminal Law - Ingredients of offences under IPC - Court noted that the allegations prima facie disclose offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust - Dismissal of quashing petitions upheld as the matter requires thorough examination at trial. (Paras 10, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, accused of fraud and cheating, challenged the FIR registered against them after the complainant alleged misrepresentation regarding their religion and unlawful financial transactions. The court found that the case involved serious allegations requiring trial.
Findings of Court:
The court found no grounds for quashing the FIR and emphasized the necessity of trial to address the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation.
Issues: The main issues included whether the allegations constituted a civil dispute or a criminal offence and the validity of the FIR against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the allegations indicated potential criminal activity, warranting a trial to explore the evidence and determine the truth of the claims.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed; review petition also dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments of the petitioners regarding the nature of the marriage. (Para 5) |
| 3. court's analysis of the complaint and factual background. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. discussion on the evidence and legal implications. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's observations on the necessity of a trial. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. judicial precedents and their relevance to the current case. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. final dismissal of the review petition. (Para 19) |
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 Calcut
