D.S. KARTHIK Vs. STATE AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Advocate, Shri. B. V. Acharya, appearing for the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Shri. Akarsh S. Kanade and the learned State Public Prosecutor-II, Shri. K. R. Keshavamurthy.

(2.) The facts leading up to this petition are said to be as follows. Respondent No.2 herein had lodged a complaint against the petitioner as on 27-8-2014, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 376 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity), before the RT Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru, which is said to have been registered as Crime No. 236/2014.

(3.) Shri. Acharya would contend that the Police had, while rightly concluding that there was no substance in the allegations of the petitioner having committed offences punishable under Sec. 366 and Sec. 376, IPC, erroneously formed an opinion that the ingredients of an offence punishable under Sec. 417 were present. And that the court below has mechanically accepted that opinion, when the glaring circumstance that the necessary ingredients to constitute such an offence were not even remotely made out. It is pointed out that the primary requirement is the presence of deception. Consequently there must be dishonest intention and inducement. The alleged inducement was that the petitioner would marry the complainant. According to the complainant that promise had been fulfilled by their marriage on 5-6-2014. The complaint therefore is that of a wife disowned by her husband. The conclusion of the police in their report is also not to the effect that there was deception, but that the feelings or the reputation of the complainant has been hurt or damaged. It is contended that in the above circumstance, the remedy of the complainant is to sustain the status that the complainant claims as the wife of the petitioner and seek appropriate remedies before a civil court and a criminal case of cheating can never be sustained. It is hence contended that the proceedings pending before the court below be quashed.