Karnataka High Court
Sreeram Pydah vs State Of Karnataka on 2 December, 2021
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4571/2018
BETWEEN
SREERAM PYDAH
S/O SRI PYADAH VENAKTESWARA RAO
AGED 52 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF 18660 PASEO TIERRA
SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA - 95070
USA
AND ALSO AT HOUSE NO.43,
AMBIENCE FORT TOWN SHIP, ATTAPUR,
HYDERABAD, AP.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHAV KASHYAP, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANGARPET POLICE STATION
BANGARPET CIRCLE, KGF
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MR NANDA
S/O LATE K.RAMACHANDRAIAH SETTY
2
AGED 79 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF NO.559
BAZAR STREET, BANGARPET
KOLAR - 563 114.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SMT.RENY SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.03.2017,
PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
BANGARPET IN C.C.NO.288/2017 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE
AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER
SECTION 420 OF IPC AND ORDERING TO ISSUE WARRANT INSO
FAR AS THE SAME RELATES TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER
SUBMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner - accused in C.C.No.288/2017 for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC has not the knocked the doors of this Court calling in question the entire proceedings pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangarpet.
2. Heard Sri Madhav Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent, Smt. Reny 3 Sebastian, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and perused the material on record.
3. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
The second respondent - complainant is the father of the wife of the petitioner - father in law of the petitioner. The daughter of the complainant and the petitioner got married on 11.02.2008 and after marriage, both the petitioner and complainant's daughter moved to United States of America for the purpose of their respective avocations. It transpires that the relationship between the couple turns sour and a decree of divorce is sought and is granted in a petition filed before the competent Court at California - United States of America on 20.04.2011. The complainant's daughter later files a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which is decreed by the competent Court in the State of Telangana. The petitioner - husband files an appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the High Court 4 of Judicature, Hyderabad, which is pending consideration.
These are the undisputed facts.
4. After the aforesaid proceedings, the complainant - father in law of the petitioner files a petition alleging that the petitioner has deceived and cheated his daughter by not taking care of his daughter in a manner a husband should do and has also suppressed the fact that he was visual/partial blind and therefore, he has alleged that the petitioner has indulged in cheating her daughter while taking her in marriage. The primary allegation in the complaint reads as follows:
"25. £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆnÖzÝÀ ¨sÀgÀªÀ¸ÉAiÉÄãÉAzÀgÉ DvÀ ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀÄqÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAzÀÄ, ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ, ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ°è ¸ÀA¸ÁjPÀ fêÀ£À £Àqɹ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DyðPÀ ¨sÀzæv À É ¤ÃqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ, £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ M¦à¹zÀgÄÀ . CzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉZÄÀ Ñ ºÀt RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrzÉ. FUÀ £À£Àß C½AiÀÄ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÀ PÉÆlÖ ¨sÀgÀªÀ¸ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄjzÀĺÁQ £À£ßÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÁjPÀ fêÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£É. EzÀjAzÁV £À£ßÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À RZÀÄð ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£Éà ¨sÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ."
Therefore, the allegation of the complainant is that the petitioner has broken his promise that he would take care of his daughter 5 well and would give economic independence and on that promise he had spent on their marriage and the petitioner having not done so and a divorce being granted, the complainant is bearing all the expenses of his daughter. Therefore, an offence of cheating is made out. Based upon the aforesaid complaint, a FIR is registered by the police and after investigation, they have filed a chargesheet also.
5. For offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, the ingredients under Section 415 of IPC has to be driven home in the complaint at the outset. None of the ingredients depicted under Section 415 of IPC finds place in the complaint as the complaint itself, is not by a person who was allegedly deceived for getting into marriage or lured into marriage by the petitioner. The allegations in the complaint is not that the daughter or the family are lured into the marriage with the petitioner. The allegation of the complainant - 2nd respondent is that, after the marriage, the petitioner has not taken care of his daughter in a 6 manner a husband should do and thus, the petitioner has cheated the family.
6. The narration in the entire complaint is taken into consideration, it would not drive the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner - husband at the instance of the father in-law that his daughter was not taken care properly and the petitioner has suppressed his partial blindness. The proceedings that have gone on between the parties right from 2008 to 2014 is a testimony to the fact that the relationship between the petitioner and the complainant's daughter was not at all well. The father in-law of the petitioner - complainant cannot be seen to contend that his daughter is cheated or family is cheated for the relationship that turned sour between the couple.
7. The allegation of cheating cannot be made out from the narration made in the complaint. If the trial in such facts is permitted to continue, it would degenerate harassment against the petitioner and result in miscarriage of justice. 7
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed.
b. The proceedings in C.C.No.288/2017, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bangarpet, are quashed, qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj CT:MJ