IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION Nos.30136-137/2017 C/W WRIT PETITION Nos. 29440-443/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Sundaresh S/o Shilpachar Aged about 57 years 2. Parvathamma W/o Sundaresh Aged about 50 years Both are residing at Huluvadi village, Munkunda post, Mallur Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District-587620.
…Petitioners in 1. Shruthi S. W/o Harisha Aged about 25 years Residing at No.34/17 12th cross, Magadi Road, Bhuvaneshwarinagar, Bengaluru – 560 023.
2. Mamatha Rani H.S. D/o Sundaresh Aged about 21 years Residing at Huluvadi village, Munkunda post, Mallur Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District-562138.
W.P.Nos.30136-137/2017 3. Gayathree H.S. D/o Sundaresh Aged about 18 years Residing at Huluvadi village, Munkunda post, Mallur Hobli, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District-562138.
4. Harish N.
S/o late Neelakanta Chari Aged about 34 years Residing at No.34/17 12th Cross, Magadi Road, Bhuvaneshwarinagar, Bengaluru-560 023.
(By Sri. R.K.Mahadeva, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka The Station House Officer Konanakunte Police Station …Petitioners in W.P.Nos.29440-443/2017 Subramanyapura Sub-Division, Bengaluru City – 560 062.
Rep. by State Public Prosecutor High Court Building Complex Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Yamunashree D/o Rudrachari Aged about 20 years Residing at No.72/3, 3rd Cross, Chunchanaghatta Village, Konankunte, Bengaluru – 560 062.
…Respondents (common) (By Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R1 Smt.Y.Radha, Adv. for Sri.L.Harish Kumar, Adv. for R2) These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to allow the petitions and quash the FIR in Crime No.176/2017 dated 21.04.2017 of Konanakunte Police Station, Subramanyapuram Sub-Division, Bengaluru city for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC on the file of Hon’ble II Additional C.M.M., at Bengaluru, vide Annexure-A.
These Writ Petitions coming on for Hearing this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R These petitions are filed by accused Nos. 2 to 7 respectively in Crime No.176/2017 registered for an offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant and learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1- State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submitted that the allegations made in the FIR even if accepted as true, would at the most make out a civil claim by the 2nd respondent but it does not make out the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The grievance of the complainant relates to the breach of promise to marry accused No.1. The said allegation does not constitute the ingredients of offence under Section 420 of IPC and hence, initiation of criminal action against the petitioners is wholly illegal and abuse of the Court.
In support of the above submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in K.U.Prabhu Raj vs. State by Sub-Inspector of Police, A.W.P.S. Tambaram & Another (Crl.P.No.1273/2011 and M.P.Nos.1 & 2/2011) .
4. Repelling the above contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the allegations made in the complaint, prima-facie disclose the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The matter is under investigation and hence, there is no case for quashing the proceedings.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. A reading of the complaint indicates that on 29.01.2017, engagement ceremony of 2nd respondent and accused No.1. was held in ‘Ashraya Hall’, Thyagarajanagar. It is alleged that at the time of engagement, accused received dowry of Rs. 10 lakhs and a finger ring was also given to him and the parents of respondent No.2 incurred total expenses of Rs.2,00,000/- for performance of engagement ceremony. According to the complainant, after the engagement, petitioners herein demanded the parents of respondent No.2 to register their property in the name of accused No.1, failing which, threatened to call off the marriage.
7. Allegations made in the complaint clearly disclose that at the time of engagement, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs alleged to have been received by the petitioners. According to the complainant, the said amount was paid on the promise of marriage. Subsequently, the marriage has been called off and there is no repayment of money received by the petitioners. These allegations, in my view, attract the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC warranting investigation by the police. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reason to exercise jurisdiction in the matter, pending investigation.
8. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the adverse report, if any, submitted by the investigating agency.
Srl.
Sd/- JUDGE