Karnataka High Court
Shaik Ibrahim vs State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25730
CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4123 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHAIK IBRAHIM
S/O SHAIK MASTHAN,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT VENKATESWARA PG,
6TH CROSS, ASHWATH NAGAR,
MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 037
PERMANENTLY R/AT
NO.5/506-G, EGUVAGADD STREET,
NOONEVARIPALLI ROAD,
RAJAMPETA, CUDDAPAH,
ANDHRA PRADESH-516115
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KARTHIK YADAV U., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
MARKONAHALLI
RAMU PRIYA BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU CITY-560037
COURT OF
KARNATAKA REPT. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001
2. ASHWINI,
D/O VEERANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT SHARANYA LUXURY LADIES PG,
NEAR NELIVIGI EYE HOSPITAL,
BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560103
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25730
CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025
HC-KAR
VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT
NO.2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT, IN
CR.NO.106/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
420, 417 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE /
MARATHAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU, WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE
FILE OF XXIX ADDL. CJM, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU AS IT IS AN ABUSE
OF PROCESS OF COURT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:-
a) Call for records, if necessary.
b) Quash the FIR and Complaint in Cr.No.106/2025, for the offence punishable u/secs. 420, 417 of IPC, on the file of 1st Respondent Police/Marathahalli PS, Bengaluru, which is now pending on the file of XXIX Addl. CJM, Mayohall, Bengaluru, as it is an abuse of process of Court.
c) Grant such other order or orders, which this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass, in the circumstances of the case, to stall the abuse of process of Court, in the interest of justice.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Service of notice to respondent No.2 is held sufficient.
3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that respondent No.2/de-facto complainant filed the instant complaint registered as FIR in Crime No.106/2025 dated 19.02.2025 against the petitioner for alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 417 of IPC. In this context, a perusal of the impugned complaint and FIR would indicate that it is specially alleged by the respondent No.2 that the petitioner promised to marry her and subsequently went back on his promise and thereby committed the aforesaid alleged offences.
4. The impugned complaint reads as under:-
"To Inspector of Police Marathalli, Bengaluru From Date: 19-02-2025 Ashwini D/o Veeranagouda Patil, age 27 Cell no.83173385 Sharanya Luxury Ladies PG near Nelivigi Eye Hospital, Bellandur, Bengaluru.
Subject - False promise of marriage from Imbrahim Shaik -4- NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR Respected Sir, Myself Ashwini Patil currently working in Genpact Pvt. Ltd.,. Kadubeesanahalli from March 15-3-2024 as Accounts Payable (PTP). During my work I met Shaik Ibrahim working as Procure to Pay in Genpact company Kadubeesanahalli. We both met as a friend in company. He got more close to me in the company. We both started talking each other in phone calls. During June 2024, we met close because I was not well and then he proposed me. We both fallen in love and then he promised to marry me in Marathalli Multiplex my friend Divya was also witness. One time, he took to multiplex in Marathalli to watch movie then he forced me to physical hand capture to my upper and lower private parts & in our office some of the colleagues know that we were lovers. We roamed in the office Prestige Tech Park Genpack Pvt., Ltd., and then he took me to Kalyana Jewellery Marathalli, to buy a ring he weared a ring to me in Kalyana Jewellers and then he took me Bellandur in front of friend Divya, he said he wared me a ring, he showed it then we roamed in Marathalli and Bellandur. Every weekend Central Mall he is to book the tickets for movie to watch, after movie, we is to go little bean shop near Bellandur. He is to do physical touch with me. And then weekends holiday, he is to take me to Marathalli for foods to have. After office also log off time early morning he is to take Marathalli to have Tea. After that we roamed in Marathalli and then he is to do physical touch. Every morning he is to take Marathalli for a tea snacks, then weekdays in Bellandur before going to the office, he is to come to near my PG Sharanya Luxury Ladies PG Bellandur. We both went more in the Udapi Aathitya Bellandur for tea and -5- NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR lunch. Thereafter, he started saying lies and cheated to me. So I kindly request you Sir to take legal action against Shaik Ibrahim for false marriage.
Shaik Ibrahim temporary residential address:
Venkateswara PG, 6th Cross Down, Ashwath Nagar, Marathalli, Bengaluru - 560 037 Permanent address Noonevaripalli Road Bhavani Nagar, Vidyuth Nagar, Rajampeta, Andhra Pradesh - 516115 Name and phone numbers of three persons
1) Shaik Ibrahim - 62815 60840, 8125439109
2) Shaik Masthan - 9502474326
3) Shaik Aisha - 80844709879 Yours faithfully sd/-
8317338588"
5. So also the impugned FIR reads as under:-
"F zÀÆj£À ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉà ¦AiÀiÁzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ PÁqÀĩøÀ£ÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ Genpact Pvt. Ltd. PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è Accounts Payable (PTP) DV ¢£ÁAPÀ:
15.03.2024 jAzÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÉà PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ±ÉÃSï E¨Áæ»A gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ E§âgÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀàgÀ E§âgÀ ªÀÄzsÉå ¸ÉßúÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. »ÃVgÀĪÁUÀ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ dÆ£ï 2024 gÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ DgÉÆÃUÀåzÀ°è ¸ÀªÀĸÉå EzÀÄÝ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj ±ÉÃSï E¨Áæ»A£ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ -6- NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR PÉÆèøï DVzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄ°Ö¥ÀèPïìUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj ±ÉÃSï E¨Áæ»A gÀªÀgÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÁV ¥Àæ¥ÉÆÃ¸ï ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¸Éßûw ¢ªÁågÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ±ÉÃSï E¨Áæ»A£ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÀvÀÛºÀ½î PÀ¯Áåt dÆåªÉ®¸ïð ±Á¥ïUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV jAUï£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀ ¢ªÁågÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ jAUï ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÁÛrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ zÉúÀzÀ ªÉÄð£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ®V£À ¥ÉæöʪÉÃmï ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄnÖgÀÄvÁÛ£É. »ÃUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ±ÉÃSï E¨Áæ»A£ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÀgÀjUÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ ¸ÀÄvÁÛrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ FUÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉý ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É JAzÀÄ PÉÆlÖ zÀÆgÀÄ EvÁå¢."
6. A perusal of the aforesaid complaint and FIR would indicate that except stating that the petitioner had allegedly cheated her by promising to marry her, necessary ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC are absent and not forthcoming in the impugned complaint and FIR. In this regard, under identical circumstances, in Raju Krishna Shedbalkar vs. The State of Karnataka and another [Criminal Appeal No.577/2024], the Hon'ble Apex Court has come to the conclusion that mere promise to marry would not attract the aforesaid offence. The aforesaid judgment is extracted as under:
"1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant before this Court has challenged the order dated 12.07.2021 by which his 482 petition -7- NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR before the High Court was only partly allowed in as much as though the High Court has quashed the proceedings regarding offences under Sections 406/420/417 of Indian Penal Code as far as they relate to the co-accused, and also against the appellant so far as it relates to offences under Sections 406 & 420, but the criminal proceedings against the appellant have not been quashed under Section 417. Thus, still aggrieved he has come before this Court.
3. The facts of this case are that the informant Ms. Sushmita present respondent no. 2 had lodged her FIR at Malamaruti Police Station, Karnataka under Sections 406/420/417 read with Section 34 IPC against 6 persons including the present appellant. It was stated in the FIR that the informant is M.Tech. graduate and was working as a lecturer. Her elders were searching a suitable bridegroom for her which they found in the present appellant. The appellant and the informant were thereafter talking to each other on phone and her father had also given Rs.75,000/- in advance for the marriage hall, but this marriage never took place as she learnt from a newspaper report that the appellant has in fact married someone else! She then lodges an FIR against 6 persons under Sections 406/420/417 read with Section 34 of IPC. The FIR, primarily related to offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The accused persons are the present appellant (i.e. the prospective bridegroom according -8- NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR to the informant) his mother, sisters and brothers. All the accused had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings as no case under Sections 406/407/420 read with Section 34 IPC was made out against any of them and they would argue that the proceedings initiated by the accused was nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The learned Single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that no offences under Section 406 or under Section 420 is made out against any of the accused persons. The reasoning given by the High Court are as under:--
"21. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC, there must be criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC. To constitute criminal breach of trust, there must be entrustment of the property or domain over the property or there must be dishonest misappropriation of such property. In the present case, even though it is stated that a sum of Rs.15,000/- was paid to accused No.1 for purchase of clothes and spent Rs.75,000/- for booking the marriage hall, the ingredients of Section 405 of IPC is not attracted. It cannot be said that there was entrustment of property and• there is dishonest, misappropriation of the same. Therefore, the offence under Section 406 of IPC is not made out.-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR
22. Section 420 of IPC is also invoked against these petitioners. To constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, there must be cheating dishonestly by inducing the person to deliver any property or to make alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security etc. On going through the first information in detail, it is revealed that even these requirements to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not made out."
All the same, the High Court then came to the conclusion that as against the appellant an offence under Section 417 of IPC is made out, though not against the rest of the accused. The reasoning given by the High Court for maintaining the offence under Section 417 IPC, however are not correct. These reasonings are as follows:--
"I do find considerable force in the contention taken by the respondent No. 2 that accused No.1 was having intention to deceive the informant, received the money for purchase of clothes and also got booked the marriage hall. Prima facie it constitutes the offence under Section 415 of IPC punishable under Section 417 of IPC. I do not find any reason to reject this contention ignoring the specific averments made in the first information."
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. This offence according to the High Court made out against the present appellant as the father of the informant was induced to book a marriage hall by the appellant alone and therefore, there is prima facie material which makes out a case under Section 417 IPC. We are afraid that the reasoning by the High Court upholding the proceedings under Section 417 is patently incorrect.
5. Cheating is defined under Section 415 of IPC which reads as follows:--
"415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
A perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that the offence of cheating is in two parts. The first is where a person fraudulently or dishonestly deceives another in inducing that person to deliver any property to any person etc. The second part of the offence would be made out if somebody is deceived to do an act which causes damage or harm to that person "in body, mind, or reputation or property is said to
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR have cheated". Time and again, this Court has reiterated that in order to make out an offence under cheating the intention to cheat or deceive should be right from the beginning. By no stretch of imagination, this is even reflected from the complaint made by the informant.
6. In the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v.
State of Bihar (2000) 4 SCC 168, this Court held as under:
"15. In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning, that is, when he made the promise cannot be presumed."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR Further, in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC 736 this position was reiterated in the following manner:
33. The High Court has held that mere breach of contractual terms would not amount to cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction and in the absence of an allegation that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention while making a promise, there is no "cheating". The High Court has relied on several decisions of this Court wherein this Court has held that dishonest intent at the time of making the promise/inducement is necessary, in addition to the subsequent failure to fulfil the promise. Illustrations (f) and (g) to Section 415 make this position clear:
"(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats.
(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery, A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract."
(emphasis supplied)
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR
7. The Punishment of cheating is given under Section 417 of IPC which reads as under:
"417. Punishment for Cheating.-- Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both."
8. We do not see how an offence even under Section 417 of IPC is made out against the present appellant. There can be multiple reasons for initiating a marriage proposal and then the proposal not reaching the desired end. It may in a given case involve cheating; it is possible theoretically yet in order to prove an offence of cheating in such cases prosecution must have reliable and trustworthy evidence in order to first prosecute such a case. There is no such evidence before the prosecution and therefore no offence under Section 417 is also made out. Consequently, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the Trial Court to the extent it has refrained from quashing the proceedings under Section 417 IPC against the present appellant. The petition succeeds, the appeal is allowed, to the extend stated above."
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment referred to supra, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:25730 CRL.P No. 4123 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.106/2025 registered by Marathahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 417 of IPC, pending on the file of the XXIX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE PMR List No.: 3 Sl No.: 7