ESWARAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.134/2020 registered by the Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506 , 341 , 376 , 504 , 420 , 324 , 342 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that, the complainant gave the complaint alleging that the first petitioner and her husband Rangareddy were running chit business and she was running hotel business. She was also a subscriber of the chit under them and paid four installments and thereafter left the chit. Afterwards, the first petitioner and her husband have collected blank signed cheques from her regularly for the said chit. Subsequently, the complainant had sold her hotel for a sum of Rs.20 Lakhs, it was known to first petitioner and her husband and later, they approached her for the hand loan of Rs.10 Lakhs. The complainant had given a sum of Rs.8 Lakhs, out of which Rs.7,68,000/- was paid through cheque and Rs.32,000/- was paid by way of cash. Afterwards, the complainant located new place for starting a hotel and approached first petitioner and her husband to return the money borrowed from her. They informed her that they are going to get loan from other financiers and asked her to give blank cheques and promissory notes and she agreed for the same. However, on 09.03.2020, when the complainant called the first petitioner at about 1.58 p.m., her husband picked the call and informed her to come and collect the amount and documents. When she went to the house of the first petitioner, her husband committed forcible sexual intercourse on her. On the next day, first petitioner called her to the house and apologized for the act of her husband and requested not to give any complaint. At the same time, the present petitioners abused her in a filthy language, caused life threat and assaulted with hands. Hence, she gave the complaint and case has been registered.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners before this Court is that they have not committed any offence and they are innocents. It is also his contention that there was delay in lodging the complaint and these petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and the offence under Section 376 of IPC does not attract against these petitioners and the other offences alleged against these petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterates the grounds urged in the petition and submits that the main allegation is only against the accused No.1, who is the husband of the first petitioner and the allegations against these petitioners is that they abused the complainant in a filthy language, caused life threat and assaulted with hands.