SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top