IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3534 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SUBHARAJYOTI HALDER S/O TAPAN KUMAR HALDER, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AS TECHNICAL SALES ENGINEER, MAXIM INTEGRATED INDIA PVT.LTD, TOWER-B, 4TH FLOOR, COMMERCIO @ MANTRI, 51/2-4, DEVABISANAHALLI FLY OVER, KAIYAMMANA AGRAHARA, BELLANDUR, VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE 560103 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY J.P NAGAR POLICE STQTION, BANGALORE 560078 BY STATE P.P 2. SMT. PARAMITA HALDER W/O. SUBHARAJYOTI HALDER, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT: NO.81, 3RD MAIN ROAD, SRI GURU RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, 7TH PHASE, J.P NAGAR, BANGALORE 560078 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; Ms. KARISHMAH.J., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 12.12.2014 REGISTERED IN CR. NO.872/2014 BY J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION., PENDING BEFORE THE V A.C.M.M., BANGALORE MARKED AS ANNEXURES- A AND B RESPECTIVELY.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the FIR in Crime No.0872/2014 registered by J.P.Nagar Police Station under section 420 IPC.
2. Petitioner is the husband of respondent No.2.
Petitioner and respondent No.2 were maintaining a joint account bearing No.20083211608. On account of matrimonial differences, petitioner and respondent No.2 appear to have fallen apart; respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before J.P.Nagar Police Station on 12.12.2014, alleging that on 30.09.2014, she came to know that petitioner herein had transferred Rs.5,000/-
on 20.01.2014 and Rs.400/- on 20.09.2014 from the joint account.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the bank statement relating to account No.20083211608 pointed out that Rs.5,000/- that was transferred to account No.32223072555 was re-credited on 20.1.2014 and likewise, amount of Rs.400/- also was re-credited to the joint account on 18.12.2014, as such, no offence is made out. Further he would submit that the allegations made in the complaint, even if accepted on face value, do not make out the ingredients of offence under section 420 of IPC. Hence, the prosecution of petitioner for the above offence is wholly illegal and abuse of process of court.
4. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 however argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint and the entries in the bank statement clearly disclose that, without any authority, petitioner transferred the amount to his individual account and as such, there is prima-facie material to proceed with the investigation and thus sought to dismiss the petition.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seeks time to submit his argument. Prayer is rejected.
6. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that account No.20083211608 was standing in the joint names of petitioner and respondent No.2. A reading of the complaint indicates that petitioner was authorized to operate the said joint account. There is nothing on record to show that the authority given to petitioner No.1 to operate the account was revoked or withdrawn as on the date of alleged transaction. Under the said circumstances, even if there is any transfer of amount, the same does not give rise to a criminal offence. Furthermore, in the absence of any material to show that the said transfers were made with criminal intention to cheat or deceive the second respondent, ingredients of section 420 IPC do not get attracted to the facts of the case. The very fact that the amount was re- credited to the very same account indicate that the petitioner had no intention whatsoever to misappropriate the said amount. Under the said circumstances, basic ingredients of section 420 of IPC having not been attracted, registration of FIR and consequent investigation thereon cannot be permitted. That apart, having regard to the strained relationship between petitioner and respondent No.2, respondent No.2 appears to have abused process of court by filing a frivolous complaint, making baseless allegations. The proceedings initiated against petitioner being malafide, malicious and ulteriorly motivated, are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. FIR in Crime No.0872/2014 registered by J.P.Nagar Police pending on the file of V ACMM, Bangalore is quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss