Karnataka High Court
Smt Babina Roshan vs State Of Karnataka on 22 February, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K N Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3866/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SMT BABINA ROSHAN
WIFE OF ROSHAN WILLIAMS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
NO.202, V K HENNUR RESIDENCY
4TH BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT
HENNUR MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU CITY - 560 043.
2. SRI BHUVANDAS KARUPALLI
S/O RAMMAN KUTTY
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.268,
"SURABHI" 3RD MAIN
5TH CROSS, VIDHANASOUNDHA LAYOUT
LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560058.
3. SRI SUDHIR KARUPALLI
S/O SRI BHUVANDAS KARUPALLI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESIDING AT : NO.268
"SURABHI" 3RD MAIN
5TH CROSS,
VIDHANASOUNDHA LAYOUT
LAGGERE, BENGALURU - 560058. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.RENY SEBASTIAN, ADV)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HENUR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING.
2. MRS PAVANA WILLIAMS
WIFE OF LATE BONAFACE WILLIAMS
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
R/O NO.304, V K HENNUR RESIDENCY
4TH BLOCK, 4TH MAIN,HBR LAYOUT
HENNUR ROAD,BENGALURU -560 043. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R.1,
SRI KIRAN SEBASTIAN ROZARIO, ADV. FOR R.2 ABSENT)
THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CRIME NO.90/2017 OF HENNUR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER
SECTIONS 406, 420 READ WITH 34 OF IPC PENDING ON
THE FILE OF IV ACMM, BENGALURU CITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Respondent no .2 and her counsel remained absent yesterday. Therefore, in order to provide an opportunity to the respondent, the case was adjourned to today. Even when the case is called today, respondent no.2 and her counsel remained absent. Hence, I have heard the 3 arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the records.
2. The petitioners have sought for quashing of the FIR in Crime No.90/2017 on the file of Hennur Police station, Bangalore registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 of IPC which is inturn forwarded to 4th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. The records disclose that the 2nd respondent has lodged a complaint on 14.02.2017 making allegations against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406, 420 of IPC. It is seen from the records that the husband of the 2nd respondent had already filed a complaint on 09.10.2016 before the same Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.346/2016 for the offence under Section 420 IPC. On careful perusal of both complaints, verbatim they are one and the same. Absolutely, no word is different from one complaint to another, except the name of the complainant.
4
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the complainant in crime no.346/2016 died during the course of investigation and thereafter, the wife of the complainant i.e., present respondent no.2 has filed another complaint(FIR) on 14.02.2017 registered in Co.No.90/17 and the police are investigating both the cases.
4. On careful perusal of the complaint averments, it is the case of the 2nd respondent and her late husband that the complainant's son was employed in Doha in the State of Qatar. He used to bring lot of gold and diamond jewelleries from Qatar by purchasing, and he used to give them to Smt.Babina Roshan i.e., petitioner no.1 on trust. On 18.10.2013 abruptly petitioner no.1 gave all her properties and her jewellery to her relatives and went to her brother's house. Thereafter, respondent no.2 and her husband requested the said Babina - petitioner no.1 and her relative Shruthi Bijunath to return the said jewelleries (gold and diamond). However, the complainant came to know that Babina's brother Sudhir Karupalli, who is petitioner no.3 5 herein has taken away those gold and diamond articles to Mangalore. Alleging that, the petitioners have not returned the said gold and diamond jewelleries, a complaint came to be filed by the husband of the 2nd respondent by name B.Williams on 09.10.2016. As he died, subsequently, one more FIR/complaint is lodged by the 2nd respondent and the same is again registered in Cr.No.346/2016.
5. That on a particular allegation, if a crime has already been registered, there is no question of registering another FIR on the basis of same factual aspects and same allegations. If, any witness like respondent no.2 herein wants to continue the said complaint filed by her husband, police can continue the investigation on the first FIR which is registered in Crime No.346/2016 itself and record the statement of the witnesses in support of the case and file appropriate report to the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, the FIR registered in Crime No.90/2017 on the basis of the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent deserves to be quashed, particularly when earlier FIR in 6 Cr.No.346/2016 is very much pending for investigation. Therefore, it is made clear that, the police can proceed with the investigation so far as the FIR in Crime No.346/2016 and submit the report in accordance with law. Accordingly, the following order is passed:
ORDER Petition is allowed. Consequently, the FIR in Crime No.90/2017 of Hennur Police Station registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, which is registered on the file of the 4th Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru and all further proceedings therein are hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that the police can proceed with the investigation in Crime No.346/2016 dated 09.10.2016 and submit appropriate report to the Court in accordance with law. I.A.1/2017 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE brn