- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20683 CRL.P No. 10045 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10045 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ARUN N S/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 2. SMT. ASHWINI W/O SRI. ARUN N AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: NO.705, 7TH CROSS, BDA APARTMENT, KOMMEGHATTA PHASE-1 BLOCK-3, BENGALURU-560 060. 3. SMT. AKHILA W/O MR. SANTHOSH V D/O B. NINGIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.55, 2ND MAIN ROAD, MARUTHINAGAR, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 072. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N. NANDAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20683 CRL.P No. 10045 of 2023 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. SANTHOSH V S/O VASUDEVAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.49, 4TH MAIN ROAD, BYRAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU. PERMANENT RESIDING AT: NO.241, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, JOGUPALYA, ULSOOR, BENGALURU-560 042. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CRIME NO.379/2023 IN CHANDRA LAYOUT P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 417, 420 READ WITH 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VIII ADDL. CMM AT BENGALURU CITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20683 CRL.P No. 10045 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Cr.No. 379/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint alleging that since 2018 he was working in No Broker company. During 2018 he came to be acquainted with accused No.3 Akhila through Facebook and got her employment in No Broker company. They fell in love and she agreed to marry him by concealing the fact that she was already married and yet to be divorced. Accused No.2 Ashwini is the elder sister of accused No.3. Accused No.1 Arun is the husband of accused No.2 Ashwini. Having come to know that complainant is very innocent and is not - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20683 CRL.P No. 10045 of 2023 having any support from any relative, accused No.1 Arun demanded from complainant and received ₹5 lakhs so that he would perform his marriage with accused No.3/Akhila. On the demand made by accused No.3 Akhila, he got purchased two i-Phones for ₹2,60,000/- for her. Similarly, accused No.2 Ashwini and accused No.3 Akhila demanded and got purchased gold ornaments from Bhima Jewellers by making investment in a sum of ₹15,18,832/-. The marriage of accused No.3 Akhila and complainant was performed on 11.11.2022 at Madduramma Temple of Nagarbhavi, Bengaluru. Accused No.3 Akhila also lied to the complainant that she belong to Gowda caste. After the marriage, complainant and accused No.3 stayed together at the Cambridge layout for three months. During this period, all the accused persons extracted lakhs of rupees from him. Accused No.3 Akhila did not allow him to have physical relationship. After three months, she left the house taking all the ornaments and also committed theft of Honda Activa KA–06–KC–4213. Even after she left the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20683 CRL.P No. 10045 of 2023 matrimonial home, accused No.1 Arun has taken ₹1,50,000/- from the complainant and in this way, all the accused persons cheated him. 4. Based on this complaint, the concerned police have registered the case in Cr.No.379/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 417 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC and taken up investigation. 5. The accused persons have secured bail and through the present petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings contending that they are innocent and have not committed the alleged offence. The reading of the entire complaint would not attract the offences for which the case is registered. Accused No.3 is the wife of complainant and as such question of cheating does not arise. There was never any demand for ₹5 lakhs or for ornaments as alleged. They have not received any cash from the complainant. Petitioners have not escaped. There are residing in Bengaluru in the address given in the cause - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20683 CRL.P No. 10045 of 2023 title. Accused No.1 is a software employee. Accused No.2 is working as head of the department in AIRAA Academy. Accused No.3 is a graduate in food and nutrition. She is not employed, there is no prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners and hence the petition. 6. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 and learning counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant submit that accused Nos.2 and 3 are sisters and accused No.1 is the husband of accused No.2. Complainant came to be acquainted with accused No.3 through Facebook. Even though accused No.3 Akhila is a married woman and not yet divorced the accused persons falsely represented as though she is unmarried and extracted lakhs of rupees, gold ornaments, i-Phones, etc, from the complainant and performed his marriage with accused No.3. Though they stayed together for a period of three months in a rented premises, accused No.3 never allowed him to have physical - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20683 CRL.P No. 10045 of 2023 relationship and ultimately she left the matrimonial home, taking away all the gold ornaments, valuables and also a two wheeler belonging to complainant leading to the filing of complaint. They would submit that the allegations requires thorough investigation including recovery of the valuables. These disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the light of prima facie material to proceed against the accused persons, petition is liable to be dismissed and pray to dismiss the same. 7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant has relied upon the decision in Aniruddha Khanwalkar Vs. Sharmila Das and Ors. (Aniruddha Khanwalkar)1. 8. Heard arguments and perused the record. 1 SLP (Crl) No.10746/2023 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20683 CRL.P No. 10045 of 2023 9. As evident from the complaint averments accused Nos.2 and 3 are sisters, whereas accused No.1 is the husband of accused No.2. It is specifically alleged that accused No.3 was married and when her marriage is subsisting accused persons falsely represented as though she is not married and induced the complainant to marry her. For this, they have extracted lakhs of rupees from the complainant. They have also made him to spend lakhs of rupees for purchasing gold ornaments and i-Phones. Ultimately, his marriage with accused No.3 was performed on 11.11.2022. Though they stayed together in a rented premises for a period of three months, accused No.3 did not allow him to have intercourse with her. He has also alleged that after three months, she left the house, taking away all the gold ornaments and other valuables and also two wheeler belonging to him. 10. Petitioners have produced documents to show that accused No.3 and her earlier husband Karthik S, have - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20683 CRL.P No. 10045 of 2023 taken divorce in 2015. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint the complainant has not disclosed the name of the previous husband of accused No.3. It is not clear whether he is referring to Karthik S or some other person. If he is the one referred to in the complaint, then the question that would arise is whether the fact of accused No.3 being a divorcee was brought to the notice of complainant before they married. The petitioners have also produced a few payments made through Google pay to complainant, for a total sum of rupees ₹59,271. The allegations made by complainant that accused have cheated him by extracting Lakhs of rupees from him in the form of cash, gold, ornaments, i-Phones, etc., under the guise of getting married accused No.3 is to be established at trial. The receipts produced by the complainant support this fact. Why the payments for total sum of ₹59,271/- was made to complainant is to be explained by the accused at trial. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20683 CRL.P No. 10045 of 2023 11. In the light of the specific and serious allegations made against the accused persons, a thorough investigation is required. The disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, especially when there is a strong prima facie case made out against the accused persons. They have already secured bail. In the light of the same, no prejudice would be caused if detailed investigation is conducted by the concerned police. 12. In fact in Aniruddha Khanwalkar, referred to supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the accused had produced a forged divorce order and induced the complainant to enter into marriage with accused No.1 and the other accused are also privy to the same, it is a case for proceeding against the accused persons and they are not entitled for quashing of criminal proceedings. 13. For the above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20683 CRL.P No. 10045 of 2023 the relief sought and accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER Petition filed by the accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. In view of disposal of the petition, pending application/s, if any, stands disposed off, as no separate order is required. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 CT:ar