1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200021/2022
BETWEEN:
P. VENUGOPAL S/O P.SUBBARAO,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
R/O H.NO.13-2-239, SAI RESIDENCY,
PRITHVI TOWERS, OPP: RAMACHANDRA NAGAR,
ANANTAPUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.
… PETITIONER
(BY SRI: SHIVANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE, THROUGH RAICHUR CYBER,
ECONOMIC & NARCOTICS BRANCH
(CEN) P.S. RAICHUR, REP. BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH,
KALABURAGI-585107.
2.
N.SURENDRAJI S/O SOMANATHJIRAO,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED PERSON,
R/O H.NO.12-10-25, GUNJ ROAD,
RAICHUR-584101.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., HCGP FOR R1;
BY SRI. ISWARAJ. S. CHOWDAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR &
COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.10/2021 OF THE
CEN CRIME POLICE STATION RAICHUR ON THE FILE OF PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT RAICHUR FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2008 (U/S.66
(C) IPC 1860 (U/S. 420) AND ALSO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS
THE HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES
OF THE CASE.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
The petitioner being accused, is before this Court
invoking inherent powers of this Court under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., to quash the FIR and complaint registered in
Crime No.10/2021 of CEN Crime Police Station, Raichur, on
the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC
Court, Raichur, for the offence punishable under Section
66C of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (for short
‘I.T. Act’) and under Section 420 of IPC.
2.
Brief facts of the case are that respondent
No.2 being the father-in-law of the petitioner filed first
information with CEN Crime Police Station, Raichur,
alleging that the petitioner married his daughter on
14.12.2016 and he spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- for
the marriage. After marriage, his daughter Smt.N.Lakshmi
started residing with the petitioner in her matrimonial
house. On 19.12.2016, the petitioner had gone to New-
Zealand on his avocation. The daughter of the informant
3
started residing with her in-laws and brother-in-law in her
matrimonial house. They used to ill-treat her demanding
additional dowry. On 23.04.2017, the petitioner had came
to Hyderabad and treated his wife cruelly. In this regard,
petition under the provisions of the Protection of Women
from
Domestic
Violence
Act,
2005,
was
filed
in
Crl.Misc.No.92/2017. In the meantime, petitioner filed a
petition seeking declaration in FCOP.No.126/2017 to
declare his marriage with the daughter of the informant as
null and void.
3.
The informant stated that while he was
searching on the internet, he found that there is profile in
the matrimonial site in the name of the petitioner, where
he described his matrimonial status as unmarried.
Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner committed
cheating by uploading false information in the internet and
requested the police to register the case and to initiate
legal action against the petitioner. Accordingly, police
registered the case and took up investigation. It is stated
that now the investigation is in progress.
4
4.
The petitioner being the accused, is before this
Court seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated
against him.
5.
Heard Sri. Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Smt. Maya.T.R., learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Iswaraj
S.Chowdapur, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Perused the materials on record.
6.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the FIR was registered for the offence punishable
under Section 66C of the I.T. Act and under Section 420 of
IPC. None of these provisions are attracted to the facts
and circumstances of the case. Since the petitioner had
filed the petition seeking declaration of marriage with Smt.
N.Lakshmi as null and void, a false complaint came to be
lodged, only to tease and harass the petitioner. Since
there are no prima-facie materials to attract any of the
penal provisions, criminal proceedings initiated against the
5
petitioner is required to be quashed. Accordingly, he prays
for allowing the petition.
7.
Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for
respondent No.2 opposing the petition submitted that the
investigation is undertaken, which is still at the initial
stage. Hence, no interference at this stage is called for.
Therefore, they pray to dismiss the petition.
8.
In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
“Whether the FIR and complaint
in Crime No.10/2021 of CEN Crime
Police Station, Raichur is liable to be
quashed
invoking
inherent
power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? What
order?”
My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for
the following:
6
R E A S O N S
9.
Section
66C
of
the
I.T.Act
deals
with
punishment for identity theft. To invoke this provision,
there must be fraudulent or dishonest use of the electronic
signature, password or any other unique identification
feature of any other person. There is no such allegation