SRI DHANARAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the petitioner's Counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

(2.) The complaint discloses that the complainant came in contact with the petitioner about 14 years ago and she lived with him. It is stated that for the last 14 years, she has been subjected to harassment by the petitioner who was found to be a womanizer. It is also alleged that the petitioner brought another girl to Bengaluru by promising her that he would provide her a chance in film industry and lived with that girl in an hotel. As the complainant came to know the conduct of petitioner, she said that she would not like to continue relationship with him any longer. It is also alleged that the petitioner took away all her jewellery when they were living together and sold some of them and pledged some other items. Based on this complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No.60/2017 for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 504 and 506 of IPC.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argues that a false complaint has been registered against the petitioner. The complaint itself shows that the petitioner and complainant lived together for 14 years. At any point of time, she could have made a complaint against the petitioner, if she was really subjected to harassment by him. All that she has stated is, she does not like to continue relationship with him. Even there is allegation against the mother of petitioner. After registration of this complaint, she made a private complaint before the Magistrate Court alleging offence under Section 307 IPC. This complaint was also tagged with her earlier complaint which is registered in Cr.No.60/2017. The fact that they lived together for 14 years shows that the allegations made against him in the private complaint are all false. In these circumstances, the petitioner has threat of being arrested. Therefore, he is entitled to anticipatory bail.