Karnataka High Court
Ms Samantha Christina Delfina Willis vs The State Of Karnataka on 5 July, 2024
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 19.04.2024
Pronounced on : 05.07.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
REVIEW PETITION NO.583 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION No.24602 OF 2021 (GM - RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.20751 OF 2022 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.13834 OF 2022 (GM - RES)
IN REVIEW PETITION 583 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SHAKILA WILLIS
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
D/O DAVID JAMES WILIS AFC
NOW AT No.82, BANMALIPUR ROAD
KASOBKUNJU, BANMALIPUR
BARASAT, CALCUTTA CENTRAL
WEST BENGAL - 700 124.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NO.2, ALI ASKER ROAD
VASANTHANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 051.
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR
HENNUR POLICE STATION
SERVICE ROAD, BALACHANDRA LAYOUT
BABUSAPALYA, HENNUR GARDENS
BENGALURU - 560 043.
4. MR.VASANTH KUMAR M.,
INSPECTOR
HENNUR POLICE STATION
SERVICE ROAD, BALACHANDRA LAYOUT
BABUSAPALYA, HENNUR GARDENS
BENGALURU - 560 043.
5. SYED ALI HINDUSTANI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O SYED KHAJA MOHIDDIN
RESIDING AT NO.704, 5TH 'D' CROSS,
HBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
ALSO AT:
BLOCK-E-G-007, RAMKY TOWERS
GACHIBOWLI, HYDERABAD - 500 032.
3
6. SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
W/O SYED ALI HINDUSTANI
D/O DAVID JAMES WILLIS AFC
NOW AT 79, ARRAN ROAD, STAMFORD
UNITED KINGDOM PE9 2XT
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR THE R-1 TO R-4;
SRI K.G.KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215, 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ORDER
XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CR.P.C., (a) CALL FOR RECORD AND REVIEW
BY RECALLING OR MODIFYING THE ORDER DATED 01/06/2022
PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.
24602/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-B IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES STATED IN THE PETITION; (B) RESTORE THE
WRIT PETITION NO. 24602/2021 FILED BY WRIT PETITIONER
BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THAT
THE SAID WRIT PETITION BE LISTED FOR HEARING ON MERITS,
AND (C) PASS SUCH ORDERS AS THE HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM
FIT TO GRANT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
IN WRIT PETITION No.20751 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. MS. SAMANTHA CHRISTINA DELFINA WILLIS
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
W/O SYED ALI HINDUSTANI
NOW AT 79, ARRAN ROAD, STAMFORD
UNITED KINGDOM PE9 2XT.
4
2. MRS. SHAKILA WILLIS
W/O DAVID JAMES WILLIS
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
NOW AT NO.82
BANAMALIPUR ROAD
KASOB KUNJO BANAMALIPUR
BARASAT, CALCUTTA CENTRAL
WEST BENGAL - 700 124.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HENNUR POLICE STATION
HENNUR POLICE STATION
SERVICE ROAD, BALACHANDRA LAYOUT
BABUSAPALYA, HENNUR GARDENS
BENGALURU - 560 043
REPRESENTED BY
GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU.
2. MR. SYED ALI HINDUSTANI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
S/O SYED KHAJA MOHIDDIN
RESIDING AT NO.704, 5TH D CROSS
HBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 043.
ALSO AT:
RESIDING AT
BLOCK-A1, G2
RAMKY TOWERS
HYDERABAD - 500 032.
... RESPONDENTS
5
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI K.G.KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 19.08.2022 PASSED
BY THE COURT OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.27011/2022 APPENDED AT
ANNEXURE-D AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE FIR
REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.0216/2021 THE CHARGESHEET DTD
05.07.2022 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE ON 19.08.2022 IN
C.C.NO.27011/2022 AND THE ORDER DTD 19.02.2022 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE ISSUING NON-BAILABLE WARRANT
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.
IN WRIT PETITION No.13834 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
MRS. SHAKILA WILLIS
W/O DAVID JAMES WILLIS,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
NOW AT NO.82,
BANAMALIPUR ROAD,
KASOB KUNJO,
BANAMALIPUR,
BARASAT, CALCUTTA CENTRAL
WEST BENGAL - 700 124.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
6
BY HENNUR POLICE STATION,
HENNUR POLICE STATION,
SERVICE ROAD,
BALACHANDRA LAYOUT,
BABUSAPALYA,
HENNUR GARDENS,
BENGALURU - 560 043
REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU.
2. MR.SYED ALI HINDUSTANI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O SYED KHAJA MOHIDDIN,
RESIDING AT NO.704,
5TH D CROSS, HBR LAYOUT,
KALYAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
ALSO AT:
RESIDING AT
BLOCK-A1, G2,
RAMKY TOWERS,
HYDERABAD - 500 032.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI K.G.KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 17.11.2021 PASSED
BY THE 4TH ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.0216/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND
ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
7
ORDERS ON 19.04.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
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 8 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 9 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.10
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 Calcutta instead of returning back home. On 17-07-2021 the complainant and his parents go to Calcutta to persuade her to come back which is said to have failed. Accused No.1 then, on the ground that she has to return the official laptop to her office at London seeks to travel to London and also for additional reason of getting her certificate depicting her to be a Muslim. Accused No.1 leaves to London on 26-07-2021. It is the case of the complainant that his mother requested the jewellery to be returned from the hands of the daughter-in-law. The same was not done on the ground that the mother of accused No.1 has forgotten the same to get it from Calcutta. After a few days, it is narrated in the complaint, that the mother of accused No.1 mentioned that Samantha, accused No.1 had mistakenly carried the jewels to London.
4.3. The complainant is said to have realized that there is something fishy and game being played by the mother and the 11 daughter/accused Nos.2 and 1 respectively on him and his mother.
Later, it appears that accused No.1 had booked a property in London for a sum of `7.5 crores and indicated to the complainant that she had paid an advance amount of 10% and if she does not pay the other 10% before 30-08-2021, the first installment would be forfeited. It is then, the complainant transfers `78,71,228/- into the account of accused No.1. The complainant later is said to have discovered that petitioners were not Muslims by religion and they have deceived him on Elite matrimony website depicting them to be Muslims and have defrauded the complainant and his family. It is then, the complaint comes to be registered against the petitioners on 11-11-2021.
4.4. As observed hereinabove, the moment FIR comes to be registered against the petitioners, they had knocked at the doors of this Court in Writ Petition No.24602 of 2021 which comes to be dismissed on 01-06-2022. After the dismissal of the petition, the Police have filed a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet and the act of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance is what has driven the petitioners/accused 1 and 2 to this Court in the subject petition.
125. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri Ajesh Kumar S would vehemently contend that the marriage that took place on 06-06-2021 was all fine up to October, 2021. It his case that there are certain whatsapp chats which are appended to the charge sheet which show cordial relationship between the protagonists of the crime and the money that was transferred to the account of the wife/accused No.1 was a gift from the hands of the husband/complainant and, therefore, these matters which are purely arising out of a dispute in the family are given a colour of crime. It is his case that ingredients of Section 406 or 420 of the IPC are completely absent in the case at hand, as there is no intention right from the inception to cheat the complainant by accused No.1. It is further submitted that the Police have seized all the jewellery from the hands of accused No.1 as could be gathered from the documents appended to the charge sheet on 19-11-2021 itself. He would seek to place reliance on several judgments of the Apex Court and this Court which would all bear consideration qua their relevance in the course of the order.
136. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents would refute the submissions of the petitioners to contend that accused No.1 and the complainant got married on 06-06-2021. The marriage was proposed and accepted all through a matrimony website called Elite matrimony. In the said website the petitioners had projected themselves as Muslims, as the complainant is a Muslim. Date of marriage was fixed to be on 06- 06-2021 at 6.30 p.m. as per Islamic rituals in the presence of a Muthavalli. It is the narration in the complaint and the finding in the charge sheet that the Muthavalli had insisted on the certificate of caste to be shown which was brushed aside by accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the score that the certificate is in London. It is his submission that the certificate was necessary to be produced to demonstrate that accused No.1 is a Muslim in view of her name being Samantha Christina Delfina Willis.
6.1. The learned counsel would further contend that immediately after the marriage, jewels of the complainant's mother were taken away on the pretext of a photo-shoot, all of which are not recovered and an amount of `78.71 lakhs was transferred to 14 the account of accused No.1 again on the pretext that she had booked a flat in London. The learned counsel would contend that all these would clearly show that it is a case of cheating right from the inception, as the petitioners admittedly were not Muslims but did pose themselves to be Muslims from Bangladesh.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts, link of chain of events and the dates of such events are all a matter of record and as such they would not require any regurgitation. The entire issue sprang from the complaint. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint so registered reads as follows:
From: Date: 11-11-2021
Syed Ali Hindustani (28 Years)
S/o. Syed Khaja Mohiddin
No. 704, 5th D Cross, HBR Layout,
Kalyan Nagar,
Bangalore 560 043
(9535259007)
To:
15
The Station House Officer,
Hennur Police Station,
Hennur, Bangalore - 560 043
Sir,
Sub: Complaint against Smt. Samantha Cristina Delfina Willis (26) and Smt. Shakila Willis (56) No.82, Banamalipur Road, Kasobkunju, Banamalipur, Barasat, Calcutta-700 124- for Fraud, Cheating and Theft
1) I am a resident of the above address along with my parents for the last six years. My parents had registered in M/s Elite Matrimony for getting a suitable alliance for my wedding with a Muslim girl. The executive of M/s Elite Matrimony connected us to Mrs Shakila Willis from London. She spoke to our parents several times and informed about her daughter Samantha Christina Delphina Willis. She informed that Samantha is a BSC Mathematical Physics graduate from Edinburg University and working as a data scientist in M/s Openreach, which is part of British Telecom. She further informed that her husband David Willis is a British National and was working in British Air Force and joined Gulf Airways as a Captain, post retirement. Mrs. Shakila informed that she is a Muslim and a Bangladesh national and holds Bangladesh passport. Mrs. Shakila informed that she was working as an air hostess in Gulf Airways and she met her husband there and they got married and moved to Bahrain, where Ms Samantha was born and later her earlier education was completed there in the British schools. It was further informed that Samantha is a British National and is a Muslim as Mr. David also had converted during their marriage as a Muslim and renamed as Dawood.
2) It was told by Ms Shakila that her husband Mr. David Willis is 81 years old and has Alzheimer's and they had decided to settle in India as they have their own home at Kolkata. She also told that Sarnantha has visited India several times and she has also decided to settle in India by marrying an Indian and for this reason they registered her name in the Indian Elite Matrimony- website.
163) We all decided to meet in Dubai to understand if this alliance can be worked out as it happens in any arranged Indian marriage as Samantha was coming to Dubai on official work. We met Samantha and her parents on 3rd April 2021 in Dubal. Later we invited them to Bangalore and entire family stayed with us for 15 days. Exactly during this time the lockdown was announced and international travel got affected, hence, during the course they all stayed in India and it was decided to get us both married and accordingly as per the Muslim religious methodologies we got married on 6 June 2021 at 6.30 PM as per the wishes of Mrs. Shakila. During the marriage, the Muthavalli(priest) insisted them to produce the caste certificate to prove that they were Muslims by religion, which they stated that it was kept in their London house and they had not carried it with them, since they first came to Dubai and then to India, but assured to procure it shortly.
4) During the marriage, Samantha requested my mother to give her jewelry for photo shoot purpose and she would return it back as she liked ethnic Indian jewels. My mother gave her various jewelry (as per annexure) to Samantha. My Parents wanted to have a great celebration of their only Son, limiting to the crowd as per Covid protocol as there was a lock down during the planned wedding date. However Samantha did not co- operate and she insisted that very few people shall be present. Despite informing her that as per Government Notification the upper limit was 50 persons for a marriage, she did not agree to invite anyone from outside the family and firmly told that it can be only 12 persons. Since it was a new beginning in life, we all agreed and the marriage took place. Our plans of visiting our relatives after the marriage was also cut short and we had to leave to Hyderabad on the second day of our marriage, as per her choice. She carried all the jewelry along with her to Hyderabad.
5) During our stay at Hyderabad she made me spend huge amounts for her gifts and upgradation of the home. All along she was always making enquiry about assets in my name and to show her the bank details and also to get 17 her a credit card. Many times she was requesting to share the password and PIN number of my Bank accounts which I carefully avoided to pass on to her and on this account she was very angry on me and was abusive to me on a day to day basis. She was also saying that she will hack all my accounts and I thought it was a joke.
6) On 9th of July 2021 Samantha told me that she needs to visit her auntie's house in Hyderabad and went. On 11th of July 2021, she asked us to organize for a car and instead of coming home she went straight to the airport and from there to Kolkata. This was a surprise and shocking for all of us. Several attempts were made by me and my parents asking her to come back from Airport, but she refused. On the 17th of July 2021, myself along with my parents went to Kolkata to persuade her and to bring her back to Bangalore. Several attempts by parents and myself failed. She said since she was using the official laptop of her office, she had to return the same to her employer she would return back in a month. She also informed that she will bring the caste certificate to prove that they all were Muslims by religion and it was kept in her home in London. We believed and we had to permit her.
7) Accordingly, Samantha visited Bengaluru on 24.07.2021 and stayed with me and she left to London on 26.07.2021 from my house. Before she left, my mother requested Samantha to return back the jewelry which was given to her for wearing only for the photo shoot during the marriage. Samantha told that she had forgotten to bring and it was with her mother at Kolkata and she will return it back. After some days when we enquired with the mother Smt. Shakila about the jewelry, she said that her daughter Samantha had mistakenly carried it to London. We were shocked to learn that both mother and daughter were playing fraud by mis-information about the return of jewelry of my mother. We did not take any action immediately since we were hoping everything will be fine.
8) After reaching London, She kept on telling and emotionally pressuring that she had booked an Apartment Property at a cost of 7,20,000 Pounds (Rs. 7.5 Cr) in 18 Kings Road, London by paying 10% and she is due to pay the second installment of 10% before 30.8.2021. If she fails to pay the 2nd Installment the builder will forfeit her initial down payment of 10%. Therefore, on the guise of saving that amount, she induced me to immediately make arrangements for the 2nd installment and she assured that she will register the property in our joint names. She had not discussed about arrangement of money by us while she was in India. She went on calling me and pressurizing me to make necessary arrangements and this was also assured by her mother Smt. Shakila. In order to save the marriage and believing their statements, I borrowed huge amount from my friends and relatives and transferred Rs. 78,71,228.00 to Samantha's account through the ICICI bank account in Bangalore as follows Date Amount in Rs. In the name of 23.8.21 75,59,835.71 Samantha through ICICI foreign transfer including taxes 24.8.21 3,11,392.42 Samantha through ICICI foreign transfer including taxes Total 78,71,228.10 The Bank Statements are attached.
9) I state that Samantha has blackmailed me and induced me to transfer huge amounts to her mother's account failing which she would return back to London. The amounts forcibly obtained from me during pre marriage and post marriage also are as follows:
Date Amount in Rs. In the name of
4.5.21 89,000-00 Shakila Willis
7.7.21 75,005.90 Shakila Willis
9.8.21 1,50,017.70 Shakila Willis
TOTAL 3,14,023.60
Date Amount in Rs. In the name of
19
12.8.2021 1,46,440-00 Samantha Through a
friend Mr. Masood's
Account (taken as a
loan)
30.8.2021 2,05,520-00 -Do-
13.9.2021 1,44,830-00 -Do-
Total 4,96,790-00
GRAND TOTAL OF MONEY RS.85,18,035.80
TRANSFERRED
10) After receipt of the amount, I requested her to send me
the copies of the documents, agreement, and receipt of the amount in respect of the property for my signature and she went on giving excuses. My request to send at least the scanned copies by email in respect of the Property documents and the caste certificate to prove that they were Muslims by religion was not accepted and she deliberately avoided to speak on the subject and she started threatening to file a case against me in London if I insisted to return the money.
11) At this stage I realized that Samantha, and her mother have jointly conspired and hatched a plot systematically to commit acts of impersonation, fraud, cheating, extortion and theft with an intention of making unlawful gain for themselves and causing unlawful loss to me and my family. I started verifying the details furnished by them from the beginning and I have now procured the copies of the Sale Deeds related to their residential apartment in Kolkata which are in the individual name of Smt. Shakila Willis and her husband Sri. David Willis. I was shocked to see that as per the sale deed that Smt. Shakila is a Christian and she has claimed that her nationality is Indian, as on 06.11.2017 further in the same document she has further claimed that she is a Hindu by religion and Samantha's father David Willis is also a Christian and claimed that he was a resident of Abudhabi, UAE as on 08.08.2013. I am herewith furnishing copy of the said sale deeds for your kind perusal.
2012) Thus, the said Smt. Shakila Willis and her daughter Ms Samantha have indulged in activities of impersonation by making us believe that they are Muslims by religion and contracted the marriage with me by fraudulent means and taken the jewelry of my mother without her permission, and indulged in an activity of cheating and dishonestly induced to get the delivery of amount by fraud. They have also committed an act of criminal breach of trust by gaining our confidence in the guise of entering into a false marriage and thereby using the relation for getting the money transferred to her account with an intention to make unlawful gain for themselves and cause unlawful loss to me and my family. I state that I would not have got into the marriage with Samantha if I had come to know that they were not Muslims by religion and I would not have transferred any money to her if not for the relation of husband and wife between us and her promise of making me a Joint owner in the proposed purchase of property for which I transferred the amount.
13) Samantha has intentionally, knowingly used her computer with her hacking skills has breached my privacy by hacking my data, passwords, deleting important data of evidence I had in my cloud. It is requested to kindly seek the help of Cyber Crime Department for the offence and crime committed by Samantha. Samantha's Mother is also, aware of these criminal acts being done by Samantha. She has committed an offence of extortion while putting me in a sense of fear of imminent threat to my life. Samantha has Blackmailed me through her mail ON 9.10.21 to my father stating that I would be arrested and she would put me into deep trouble and threaten to my life if we don't pay her Rs. 20 Crore Rupees as settlement amount. Samantha's mother Mrs Shakila Willis kept on pressurizing jointly to reply to the mail and act as per the mail.
14) Mrs Shakila Willis have committed acts of criminal conspiracy by deliberately concealing her true identity before the Statutory authorities and also violation of provisions of FRRO as can be seen the sale deed in their names. Though she has not completed her graduation, 21 she has falsely projected herself as a Professor in order to falsely project herself in the LinkedIn website. It is reliably learnt that both of them by adopting similar modus operandi have carried on similar acts on different persons in order to make unlawful gain for themselves.
Therefore, I sincerely once again request you to register a complaint against fraud, mis-appropriation, Impersonation, Theft of our family belongings, breach of trust, black mailing, threat to my life and breach of my privacy and initiate suitable action as per law against them."
The Police, after investigation, have filed a charge sheet for the offences afore-quoted. Column No.7 of the charge sheet so filed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 reads as follows:
"¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ºÉtÆÚgÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À ºÉZïDgï©Dgï ¯ÉÃOmï £ÀA.704 gÀ°è ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸Á-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, EAf¤AiÀÄgï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸Á-4 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ §AiÉÆÃqÉÃmÁªÀ£ÀÄß J¯ÉÊmï ªÀiÁånæªÉƤAiÀįï£À°è £ÉÆAzÀt ªÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ. J-2 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄÄ ¸Á-4 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀgɪÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ£À£ÄÀ ß £ÁªÀÅ §AiÉÆÃqÉmÁzÀ°è £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ, £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ EµÀÖªÁVzÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ M¥ÀÄàªÀÅzÁzÀgÉ MªÉÄä ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁqÉÆÃt JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ J-1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ §AiÉÆÃqÉmÁ, ¥ÉÆmÉÆêÀ£ÄÀ ß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Á-4 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁwUÉ M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸Á-1, ¸Á-4, ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ zÀĨÉÊUÉ ºÉÆÃV J-1 J-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ qÉëqï «°è¸ï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è vÁªÀÅ ªÀÄĹèA zsÀªÀðzÀªÀgÁVzÀÄÝ, PÉÆ®ÌvÁÛzÀ°è ªÀÄ£É EgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÉñÀzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV J-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÄÀ ¸Á-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ §gÀĪÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è w½¹ ¤ªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ªÀ£ÄÀ ß £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý J-1 J-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ qÉëqï «°è¸ï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:08-04-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀ£ÁrzÀÄÝ, vÀªÀÄUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ EµÀÖªÁVzÉ DzÀgÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀÄ/PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÀArµÀ£ï ºÁQzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:06- 06-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ºÉUÀΣÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ «Aqï ¥ÀèªÀgï ¥ÁæPÀÈw gɸÁmïð£À°è ªÀÄĹèA ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉ «ªÁºÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÀqɬÄAzÀÄ 10-12 d£À ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.22
J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ªÁºÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ ªÀiÁgÀ£Éà ¢£ÀªÉà vÀ£Àß ¸ÀA§A¢üUÀ¼ÄÀ ºÉÊzÁæ¨Ázï£À°ègÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:11-07-2021 gÀAzÀÄ J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀgɪÀiÁr ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ w½¸ÀzÉà PÉÆ®ÌvÁÛUÉ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Á-1 ¸Á-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀÄ J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÉÆ®ÌvÁÛUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, vÁ£ÀÄ ®AqÀ£ïUÉ ºÉÆÃV PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ gÁfãÁªÉÄ PÉÆlÄÖ §gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¨sÀgÀªÀ¸É PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¸Á-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ DPÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA©PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛ¼É. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:24-07-2021 gÀAzÀÄ J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛ¼É F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß vÁ¬ÄUÉ RaðUÉ ºÀt«®è vÀ£Àß CPËAmï¤AzÀ mÁæ£ïì¥Àgï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀÄwÛ®è ¤£Àß CPËAmï¤AzÀ mÁæ£ïì¥Àgï ªÀiÁqÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÁUÀ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÄÀ vÀ£Àß CPËAmï¤AzÀ J-2 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï D¥sï §gÉÆÃqÀ ¨ÁåAPï CPËAmï £ÀA 27400100012225 UÉ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:26-07-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ®AqÀ£ïUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸Á-5 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ CfÓUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 60 ®PÀë ¨É¯É¨Á¼ÀĪÀ a£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀdæzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆà vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV w½¹ ¸ÀzÀj ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, F §UÉÎ ¸Á-1, ¸Á-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀÄ J-2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ §½ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀÄÝ, ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ, ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ J-1 DgÉÆævÉAiÀÄ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀgɪÀiÁr vÁ£ÀÄ ®AqÀ¤ß£À QAUïì gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄ£É Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, EzÀPÉÌ ¢£ÁAPÀ:30-08-2021 gÉƼÀUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÀlÖ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. E®èªÉAzÀgÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ºÀt ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹ CªÀjAzÀ 78 ®PÀë 71 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 228 gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ L¹L¹L ¨ÁåAPï CPËAmï £ÀA 029801526261 jAzÀ ®AqÀ£ï£À°ègÀĪÀ J-1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¨ÁgïPÉèÃ¸ï ¨ÁåAPï CPËAmï £ÀA A/c No 93286207 SWIFTBIC BUKBGB22, IBAN GB7620292393286207 UÉ 78 ®PÀëzÀ 71 ¸Á«gÀzÀ 228 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ¼É. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Á-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA§gïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÁèPïªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀiÁr ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¤°è¹zÀÝjAzÀ ¸Á-1 ¸Á-4 ¸Á-5 gÀªÀgÀÄ J-2 DgÉÆævÉUÉ J-1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ Rað£À°èAiÉÄà ®AqÀ£ïUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, J-2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸Á-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-5 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀgɪÀiÁr ¸ÀªÀÄAvÁ½UÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ ¸ÀjºÉÆAzÀÄwÛ®è. «ªÁºÀ gÀzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÉÆît JAzÀÄ w½¹zÁUÀ ¸Á-1, ¸Á-4 ¸Á-5 gÀªÀjUÉ J-1 J-2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À §AzÀÄ CªÀgÀ §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV J-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄĹèA zsÀªÀÄðzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À®è JAzÀÄ w½zÀħAzÀÄ F §UÉÎ J-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 gÀªÀgÀ°è PÉýzÁUÀ vÁ£ÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ rªÉÇøïð PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀgÉ 20 PÉÆÃn ºÀt PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ E®èªÉAzÀgÉ ®AqÀ¤ß£À°è ¤ªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV ¨ÁèPïªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀiÁr ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09-10-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ J-1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸Á-1, ¸Á-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-3 gÀªÀjUÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ;19-01-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¸Á-12 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¸ÀZïðªÁgÉAmï ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸Á-8 ¸Á-9 ¸Á-10 ¸Á-11 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£ÉUÁV DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «¼Á¸ÀPÌÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è J-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-2 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥Éưøï PÀvÀðªÀåPÌÉ CrØ¥Àr¹ ¸Á-10 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á-11 gÀªÀjUÉ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖzÄÀ Ý, ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À jÃvÁå ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ gÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ."23
A perusal at the charge sheet, prima facie, is indicative of the fact that the complainant was misled into the marriage on the score that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were Muslims. If the petitioners do not belong to Muslim religion, they ought not to have projected themselves to be belonging to Muslim religion and they would produce a certificate at a later point in time which never came about. The later action of the mother and the daughter is also indicative of the fact that there are certain jewels that were taken away on any pretext whatsoever may be, were not returned. The Police on 19-11-2021 after registration of crime have seized the material.
9. According to the learned counsel appearing for the complainant the entire jewels are not returned back. The further action of transfer of `78/- lakhs into the account of accused No.1 is a matter of record. The contention of the complainant is that it was by a deceit that it was got transferred. The defence of the accused is that it was given as a gift. It is also contended that it is demonstrably a gift on the strength of a document that is appended to the charge sheet. The learned counsel for the petitioners places 24 heavy reliance on the contents of whatsapp chats. All the contents of whatsapp chats cannot ipso facto lead to quashment of charge sheet filed against the petitioners. That would require examination and cross-examination of witnesses for the contents of the chats in whatsapp to be driven home or defended as the case would be. It is trite law that proceedings which have now culminated in filing of the charge sheet and the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence cannot be quashed on the basis of whatapp chats.
10. The projection of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is purely a matrimonial dispute and the said matrimonial dispute has been deliberately given a colour of crime cannot be accepted. Though in the first blush the issues between the husband and the wife and the respective mother-in-laws are what is seen in the periphery, a deeper delving into the matter would clearly demonstrate that the accused will have to come out clean in a full blown trial. The Police have after investigation and collection of adequate material filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and the charge sheet has been taken cognizance of by the learned Magistrate. The trial is interdicted due to the orders of this Court.
25Therefore, on a perusal of the contents of the charge sheet supra would indicate that the case at hand is shrouded with maze of facts, all of which would require trial, in the least.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MOHMOOD ALI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950. In the said judgment the Apex Court has held that the High Court is entitled to read the complaint between the lines and gather real intention of the accused in the alleged crime.
This is exactly what this Court has undertaken in the case at hand and found that it would not require interference at this stage, more so, in the light of the fact that the Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet even. Therefore, the said judgment would not become applicable owing to the peculiarity obtaining in the facts of the case at hand.
12. The second judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is in the case of A.M. MOHAN v. STATE reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 339. The Apex Court considers what would 26 become ingredients of Section 420 of the IPC and has allowed a criminal appeal which was ostensibly after conviction of the appellant therein. The Apex Court was considering a case of conversion of a purely civil dispute into criminal one, as the dispute therein was between business circles. The said judgment also would not be applicable to the case at hand, as the case at hand does not project any civil dispute or other rivalry between the parties. The case of the prosecution is plain and simple of the offences that are narrated therein.
13. The third judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is one rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.9026 of 2021 disposed on 08-09-2022. That was a case where the wife had registered a complaint against the husband for offences punishable under Section 498A, 323 and 506 of the IPC. As a counter-blast to the said complaint the husband had registered a private complaint against the wife in PCR No.11622 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 408, 420, 504 and 506 of the IPC. This Court allowed the petition on the score that the husband had registered a crime as a counter-blast and to wreak vengeance 27 against the wife. There was no substance for the offences so alleged. This again would not lend any support to the petitioner.
14. The fourth judgment is the one in Criminal Petition No.4871 of 2021 disposed of on 23-09-2022 preferred by the State against an order of discharge discharging the accused wife. The allegation therein was that the wife had forged the signature of the husband and had drawn an amount of `5,89,000/- on 05-07-2011.
Discharge order had been passed on the ground that the wife was in Switzerland between 02-07-2011 and 10-07-2011. The complaint by the husband was that the wife had presented a cheque in person on 05-07-2011. Owing to impossibility of the presence of the wife on 05-07-2011 the discharge order had been passed in favour of the wife. The challenge to that is rejected by this Court. This again would not come to the aid of the petitioner.
15. The fifth judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners is in Criminal Petition No.521 of 2022 disposed of on 10-05-2022. This again was for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of the IPC registered by the wife against the 28 husband. This also would not lend any support to the case of accused No.1 or even accused No.2 in the case at hand. Therefore, none of the judgments that are relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would lend any assistance to the facts of the case on hand, as they are peculiar enough warranting full blown trial.
16. As observed hereinabove, the facts and link in the chain of events though they have happened only within a time frame of four months are undoubtedly a maze. Plethora of documents are collected by the prosecution which form part of the charge sheet;
not for nothing did the investigation take place and led to filing of the charge sheet. If interference is made at this stage by this Court, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
"9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under 1 (2021) 9 SCC 35 29 Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation.
Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such 30 stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required 31 to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27- 10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for 32 permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."
(Emphasis supplied) 33
17. The Apex Court in a later judgment in the case of SUPRIYA JAIN v. STATE OF HARYANA2, has held as follows:
"16. This is a case where the charges have been framed and the accused are awaiting trial. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, noticed above, we are of the considered opinion that the investigation and the follow-up steps are not so patently and unobtrusively defective or erroneous (except to the extent we propose to mention before concluding our judgment) that allowing the trial to progress might cause a miscarriage of justice. This is also not an appropriate stage to delve deep into the records. It is no part of the business of any of the courts to ascertain what the outcome of the trial could be, conviction or acquittal of the accused. The small window that the law, through judicial precedents, provides is to look at the allegations in the FIR and the materials collected in course of investigation, without a rebuttal thereof by the accused, and to form an opinion upon consideration thereof that an offence is indeed not disclosed from it. Unless the prosecution is shown to be illegitimate so as to result in an abuse of the process of law, it would not be proper to scuttle it.
17. The principles to be borne in mind with regard to quashing of a charge/proceedings either in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397CrPC or Section 482CrPC or together, as the case may be, has engaged the attention of this Court many a time. Reference to each and every precedent is unnecessary. However, we may profitably refer to only one decision of this Court where upon a survey of almost all the precedents on the point, the principles have been summarised by this Court succinctly. In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , this Court laid down the following guiding principles : (SCC pp. 482-84, para 27) "27. ... 27.1. Though there are no limits of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Code but the more the power, the more due care and caution is to be exercised in invoking these powers. The power of quashing 2 (2023) 7 SCC 711 34 criminal proceedings, particularly, the charge framed in terms of Section 228 of the Code should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.
27.2. The Court should apply the test as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made from the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith prima facie establish the offence or not. If the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied then the Court may interfere.
27.3. The High Court should not unduly interfere. No meticulous examination of the evidence is needed for considering whether the case would end in conviction or not at the stage of framing of charge or quashing of charge.
27.4. Where the exercise of such power is absolutely essential to prevent patent miscarriage of justice and for correcting some grave error that might be committed by the subordinate courts even in such cases, the High Court should be loath to interfere, at the threshold, to throttle the prosecution in exercise of its inherent powers.
27.5. Where there is an express legal bar enacted in any of the provisions of the Code or any specific law in force to the very initiation or institution and continuance of such criminal proceedings, such a bar is intended to provide specific protection to an accused.
27.6. The Court has a duty to balance the freedom of a person and the right of the complainant or prosecution to investigate and prosecute the offender.
27.7. The process of the court cannot be permitted to be used for an oblique or ultimate/ulterior purpose.
27.8. Where the allegations made and as they appeared from the record and documents annexed therewith to predominantly give rise and constitute a "civil wrong" with no "element of criminality" and does not satisfy the basic ingredients of a criminal offence, the court may be justified in quashing the charge. Even in such cases, the 35 court would not embark upon the critical analysis of the evidence.
27.9. Another very significant caution that the courts have to observe is that it cannot examine the facts, evidence and materials on record to determine whether there is sufficient material on the basis of which the case would end in a conviction; the court is concerned primarily with the allegations taken as a whole whether they will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an abuse of the process of court leading to injustice.
27.10. It is neither necessary nor is the court called upon to hold a full-fledged enquiry or to appreciate evidence collected by the investigating agencies to find out whether it is a case of acquittal or conviction.
27.11. Where allegations give rise to a civil claim and also amount to an offence, merely because a civil claim is maintainable, does not mean that a criminal complaint cannot be maintained.
27.12. In exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 228 and/or under Section 482, the Court cannot take into consideration external materials given by an accused for reaching the conclusion that no offence was disclosed or that there was possibility of his acquittal. The Court has to consider the record and documents annexed therewith by the prosecution.
27.13. Quashing of a charge is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution. Where the offence is even broadly satisfied, the Court should be more inclined to permit continuation of prosecution rather than its quashing at that initial stage. The Court is not expected to marshal the records with a view to decide admissibility and reliability of the documents or records but is an opinion formed prima facie.
27.14. Where the charge-sheet, report under Section 173(2) of the Code, suffers from fundamental legal defects, the Court may be well within its jurisdiction to frame a charge.
27.15. Coupled with any or all of the above, where the Court finds that it would amount to abuse of process of 36 the Code or that the interest of justice favours, otherwise it may quash the charge. The power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae i.e. to do real and substantial justice for administration of which alone, the courts exist.
*** 27.16. These are the principles which individually and preferably cumulatively (one or more) be taken into consideration as precepts to exercise of extraordinary and wide plenitude and jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code by the High Court. Where the factual foundation for an offence has been laid down, the courts should be reluctant and should not hasten to quash the proceedings even on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated or do not appear to be satisfied if there is substantial compliance with the requirements of the offence."
18. Applying the broad principles as enunciated by this Court, we hold that it is not one of those rare cases where the uncontroverted allegations appearing from the materials on record notwithstanding, it can successfully be contended that even no prima facie opinion can be formed pointing to commission of any offence by the petitioner. It is trite that the conspiracy to commit an offence is by itself distinct from the offence to do which the conspiracy is entered into and that such an offence, if actually committed, would be the subject-matter of a separate charge. The allegations that the petitioner was found counting the cash received by the principal accused from the second respondent in the presence of a listed witness and that she conspired with her sister, the principal accused, to cheat and defraud the second respondent, persuade us to record that involvement of the petitioner, howsoever limited, cannot be ruled out at this stage and, therefore, the trial ought to be permitted to proceed and she obliged to stand trial."
The Apex Court after considering the entire spectrum of law holds that in a given case the order cannot be quashed merely because it appears to be civil in nature. The accused had to stand trial.
3718. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in KAPTAN SINGH and SUPRIYA JAIN supra, I do not find any warrant of interference at this stage of the proceedings. Leaving open the liberty available to the petitioners on hand to avail the remedy at the appropriate time before the appropriate fora in an appropriate proceeding, Writ Petition No.20751 of 2022 stands rejected.
In the light of the dismissal of Writ Petition No.20751 of 2022 and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, Writ Petition No.13834 of 2022 also stands dismissed.
19. A review petition is preferred by the petitioners seeking to review the order dated 01-06-2022 rejecting Writ Petition No.24602 of 2021, referred to supra, on the score that certain observations made in the order are an error on the face of the record. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order has to be reviewed as the foundation for imposition of costs was erroneous. This Court has considered the contents of the petition and the objections filed by the complainant at the time of dismissing the writ petition. None of those contents in the order would require review or re-look, as any order for review or re-look 38 of the matter would amount to re-hearing the matter right from the word go which would not be within the parameters of the review as held by the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VERMA v.
MAYAWATI3, wherein it is held as follows:
"21. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider the claim of the petitioner and find out whether a case has been made out for interference exercising review jurisdiction.
22. Mr Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, once again took us through various earlier orders passed by this Court in respect of Taj Corridor Project and submitted that even if there is any invalidity of investigation and breach of mandatory provision, it is the duty of the Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India to take necessary steps by ordering the investigating agency to proceed further and take action in accordance with law. For the same, he relied on the judgments of this Court in H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi [AIR 1955 SC 196 : 1955 Cri LJ 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 1150] , SCR at p. 1164 and Vineet Narain v. Union of India [(1998) 1 SCC 226 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 307] . From H.N. Rishbud [AIR 1955 SC 196 : 1955 Cri LJ 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 1150] the following observation/conclusion is pressed into service: (AIR p. 204, para 10) "10. It does not follow, however, that the invalidity of the investigation is to be completely ignored by the court during trial. When the breach of such a mandatory provision is brought to the knowledge of the court at a sufficiently early stage, the court, while not declining cognizance, will have to take the necessary steps to get the illegality cured and the defect rectified, by ordering such reinvestigation as the circumstances of an individual case may call for."3
(2013) 8 SCC 320 39 In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court and since what was dismissed is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., I decline to entertain the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ