Karnataka High Court
Mr Rahul Chandrashekar Bhat vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 03.09.2024
Pronounced on : 28.10.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.4561 OF 2022 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. RAHUL CHANDRASHEKAR BHAT
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR BHAT
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS
(INDIA AND OVERSEAS)
RESIDING AT NO.70
ANATHA VILLA
5TH B MAIN ROAD
NARAYANAPPA BLOCK
R.T. NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 032.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH P.DALWAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CYBER CRIME POLICE STATION
BENGALURU CITY
REPRESENTED BY HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
2
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . MR.NISHANTH
S/O S.T.SOMASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 94/1A
9TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION
SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 080.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI SANDEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.3446
ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.16/2021 ARRAINGING THE PRESENT
PETITIONER AS ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/S 67, 66(C), 67(A) OF IT ACT AND SEC.384 OF IPC PENDING ON
THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL CMM COURT AT BANGALORE VIDE
ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 03.09.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.1 is knocking at the doors of this
Court calling in question proceedings in C.C. No. 3446 of 2022
arising out of crime in Crime No.16 of 2021 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 201, 384 and 511 of the IPC and
Sections 66C, 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000
('the Act' for short).
2. Heard Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Sandeep Patil,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant by name Nishanth, son
of then Minister for Cooperation Sri. S.T. Somashekar. It is the
allegation that his father's Personal Assistant received some
obscene videos and photographs as if showing that the complainant
4
was in the company of some women and had been sent the same
from some unknown mobile number on 25-12-2021 at about 4.30
p.m. through whatsapp and then later all those unknown persons
are said to have demanded money as ransom, failing which they
would leak the videos. Based upon this, a complaint comes to be
registered and the complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.16
of 2021 for the aforesaid offences. The investigation was
transferred to the City Crime Branch and the City Crime Branch
('CCB' for short) conducts investigation and files a final report
before the concerned Court.
4. The petitioner is said to be the accused who has generated
the video and sent to the whatsapp number of the Personal
Assistant of the father of the complainant. The issue got media
attention and the petitioner was made subject to a lookout circular
and was not permitted to travel outside the shores of the nation.
After filing of the final report before the concerned Court, the
petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject
petition seeking quashment of entire proceedings on plethora of
grounds.
5
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai would contend that the CCB is not declared
as a Police Station in terms of Section 2(s) of the Cr.P.C. It is his
further submission that mere declaration in a notification that above
the rank of Inspector will have the same powers as Officer in-
charge of the Police Station would not be sufficient to clothe the
Officers of the CCB to investigate and file a final report. He would
submit that a perusal at the final report would clearly indicate that
the investigation was done by an Officer of the Rank of Inspector
and, therefore, the entire proceedings i.e., the investigation or the
final report is vitiated being contrary to Sections 156 and 173 of the
Cr.P.C. On the facts of the case, the learned counsel would submit
that the complaint alleges that the complainant's father's Personal
Assistant received messages from a particular mobile number
circulating obscene photographs, which would tarnish the image of
the father of the complainant.
6. The statement of one Shivaleela is recorded. She in her
statement indicates that the sim that was used was a UK sim, and
6
was allegedly given to one Rakesh on 25-12-2021, and Rakesh had
given it to the petitioner. If that be so, one Bhanu Prakash,
receiving a call or a ransom message at 4.30 p.m. on 25-12-2021
from a UK number would prove the entire episode to be false, as
the statements are completely contradictory. On 27-12-2021
further statement is recorded in which it is the claim of the
complainant that fake video and obscene photographs were
generated showing the complainant with some lady in a semi-nude
condition among others. The learned counsel would contend that
those videos and photographs are not part of the charge sheet.
The seizure of 39 seconds video allegedly downloaded from the
Personal Assistant of the father of the complainant is the news
item. The video does not contain any sexually explicit act, is very
clear from the panchanama.
7. The learned counsel would further contend that the call
details record (CDR) taken from UK number reflects an outgoing
call on 26-12-2021 at 11.03 p.m. to one Satish Patil of Bijapur. It is
not investigated into. The two statements recorded are of Kum.
Meghana and Kum.Roohika who gave statements that they had
7
uploaded those very videos on their Instagram account. It was
neither sexually explicit nor provocative. There is no Forensic
Science Laboratory report or any evidence to indicate that clippings
which were projected in the news channels were edited by the
petitioner. In the entire evidence there is no semi nude or explicit
photographs at all. The photographs that are circulated are
available on the Instagram account of the two women. The learned
counsel would submit that Section 384 of the IPC does not get
attracted in the case at hand, as there is no property or valuable
security delivered to the petitioner. The learned counsel would
further contend that no offence under Section 201 of the IPC or any
offence under the Act are even attracted in the case at hand. He
would seek to place reliance on several judgments to buttress his
submissions.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Sandeep Patil appearing
for the complainant would seek to refute the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioner in contending that the petitioner
was responsible for dropping of the videos into the whatsapp
number of the Personal Assistant of the father of the complainant
8
and had also sent a message with regard to extortion of money.
The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. Therefore,
he would contend that it is a matter of trial. He would further
submit that the complainant and the person who was seen in the
video, a lady are now engaged and are going to get married and
want to live a peaceful life. He would leave the decision to the
Court.
9. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute
the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in
contending that the State Government has issued a notification
declaring the CCB to be a Police Station. The Notification may have
come about after the investigation, but nonetheless the notification
is now in place. On merit of the matter, the learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor would submit that the Police after
investigation have filed the charge sheet. Since the charge sheet is
now filed, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-blown
trial. Therefore, the petition requires to be dismissed permitting the
trial to conclude.
9
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
11. The afore-narrated facts, the link in the chain of events
are a matter of record. The basis in the link appears to be wanting.
Since the entire issue is triggered from the registration of the
complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The
complaint reads as follows:
"ಇಂದ:
ೕ. ಾಂತ ಎ . . ೋಮ ೇಖ ,
ವಯಸು 26 ವಷ
ಾಸ ನಂ 94/1ಎ, 9!ೇ "ಾ ,
ಆ .ಎಂ.$ ಎ% &ೆನ , ಸ'ಾ ವನಗರ, *ೆಂಗಳ,ರು - 560 080
zÀÆgÀªÁt ¸ÀASÉå 080-23613444
ರವ-.ೆ:
/0ೕ ಇ 1ೆಕ3
ೈಬ "ೆ6ಂ /0ೕ 7ಾ8ೆ
9.ಎ.ಆ . ದ:ಣ ಆಡು.ೋ=
*ೆಂಗಳ,ರು ನಗರ.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,
10
$ಷಯ: ?ಾ@ೋ ಅಪ-Cತ ದುಷDE ಗಳF ಸಂಚು ರೂH9 £ÀPÀ°
$=IೕಗಳನುJ ¸Àȶֹ ಾKಾLಕ MಾಲOಾಣದ0P ಹ- ಡುವR'ಾS
ಹಣ"ಾDS *ೇ="ೆ ಇಟು3 *ೆದ-ಸುUVರುವವರ WೕXೆ "ಾನೂನು -ೕU PÀæಮ
"ೈ.ೊಳYಲು "ೋ-.
******
WೕಲDಂಡ $ಷಯ"ೆD ಸಂಬಂZ9ದಂOೆ !ಾನು WೕXೆ U[9ದ $\ಾಸದ0P ನಮ]
ಕುಟುಂಬ'ೊಂ^.ೆ ಾಸ ಾSರುOೆVೕ!ೆ. ನಮ] ತಂ'ೆಯವ@ಾದ ೕ ಎ . . ೋಮ ೇಖ ,
ಯಶವಂತಪRರ $`ಾನಸaಾ bೇತ ದ ಾಸಕರು cಾಗೂ .ೌರ ಾ eತ ಕ!ಾ ಟಕ @ಾಜg ಸ"ಾ ರದ
ಸಹ"ಾರ hಾOೆ ಸCವ@ಾSರುOಾV@ೆ. !ಾನು ಸಹ @ಾಜiೕಯ ಾS .Mೆ.H ಪj^ಂದ ಗುರುU9"ೊಂಡು
ಪj ಸಂಘಟ!ೆಯ0P "ೆಲಸವನುJ KಾಡುOಾV ಬಂ^ರುOೆVೕ!ೆ.
ನನJ ಮತುV ನಮ] ತಂ'ೆಯವರ @ಾಜiೕಯದ ಏ[.ೆಯನುJ ಸmಸ'ೆ, ನಮ] cೆಸ-.ೆ ಚುgU
ತರಲು cಾಗೂ @ಾಜiೕಯ ಾS ನಮ]ನುJ ಮುSಸ*ೇ"ೆಂಬ ದುರು'ೆnೕಶ^ಂದ "ೆಲವR ದುಷDE ಗಳF
ಸಂಚು ರೂH9, ನಮ]ನುJ !ೇರ ಾS ದೃp3 Kಾ="ೊಂಡು !ಾನು, ?ಾ@ೋ ಮm\ೆಯ
MೊOೆಯ0PರುವಂOೆ ಆ Pೕಲ ಾದ ನಕ0 $=Iೕ ದೃ ಾgವ[ಗಳನುJ ಮತುV /ೕ&ೋಗಳನುJ ಸೃp3
Kಾ= ಅಪ-Cತ ವgiV q*ೈr ನಂ:447895648639 ¤AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25/12/2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 4-
30 WÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj $=Iೕ ದೃ ಾgವ[ಗಳನುJ ºÁUÀÆ /ೕ&ೋಗಳನುJ ನನJ
ತಂ'ೆಯವರ ಪಸ ನr ೆ"ೆ ಟ-?ಾದ ೕ ಾಸ.ೌಡ ಮತುV ಅಪVಸcಾಯಕ@ಾದ ೕ.aಾನುಪ "ಾs
ರವರ q*ೈr/ೕ ನಂಬ ಗಳ ಾg&ಾgt.ೆ ಪ'ೇ ಪ'ೇ Wೕ ೆu ಗಳನುJ ಕಳFm9, OಾವR
"ೇ[ದಷು3 ಹಣವನುJ "ೊಡ*ೇ"ೆಂದು ಹಣ"ಾDS *ೇ="ೆ ಇಟು3 *ೆದ-9 ಹಣವನುJ ೕಡ^ದn0P ಈ ಆ Pೕಲ
$=Iೕದ ದೃ ಾgವ[ಗಳF ಮತುV /ೕ&ೋಗಳನುJ ಾKಾLಕ Mಾಲದ0P ಮತುV Kಾದgಮಗ[.ೆ
ಹ-ದು ಡುವR'ಾS ಮತುV ನನJ cಾಗೂ ನಮ] ತಂ'ೆಯವರ @ಾಜiೕಯ ಭ$ಷgವನುJ ಮುSಸುವR'ಾS,
ಾKಾLಕ MಾಲOಾಣದ0P, Kಾಧgಮಗ[.ೆ ಹ- ಡುವR'ಾS *ೆದ-"ೆ cಾiರುOಾ@ೆ. ಸದ- ಸಂCನ
mಂ'ೆ ತುಂ*ಾ ಪ aಾವ ಾ0?ಾSರುವಂತಹ ಪದgಗಳF aಾS?ಾSರುವ ಾಧgvÉ ಇರುOೆV.
ಆದn-ಂದ ನನJ cಾಗೂ ನಮ] ತಂ'ೆಯವರ @ಾಜiೕಯದ *ೆಳವz.ೆಯನುJ ಸmಸ'ೆ
ಇರುವಂತಹ "ೆಲವR ದುಷDE ಗಳF, ನಮ.ೆ Oೊಂದ@ೆ ೕಡ*ೇ"ೆಂಬ ದುರು'ೆnೕಶ^ಂದ ಈ -ೕU ಸಂಚು
ರೂH9, !ಾನು ?ಾ@ೋ ಮm\ೆಯ MೊOೆಯ0PರುವಂOೆ ನಕ0 $=Iೕ ಮತುV /ೕ&ೋಗಳನುJ ಸೃp3
Kಾ= ಹಣ"ಾDS ಒOಾV|9, $=IೕವನುJ ಾKಾLಕ MಾಲOಾಣದ0P ಹ-ದು ಡುವR'ಾS
*ೆದ-"ೆಯನುJ cಾiದುn, ಸದ- ಆ ಾEಗಳ $ರುದn "ಾನೂನು -ೕOಾg ಕ ಮ "ೈ.ೊಳY*ೇ"ೆಂದು
"ೋರುOೆVೕ!ೆ.
11
ತಮ] $ ಾe¹
¸À»/-
( ಾಂತ)"
The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.16 of 2021. The
Police conduct investigation and file a final report. Column No.7 of
the final report reads as follows:
""ಾಲಂ ನಂ 4 ರ0P ನಮೂದು Kಾ=ರುವ ಆ@ೋHಯು ^!ಾಂಕ 25-12-2021 ರಂದು ಸಂMೆ
07-18 ಗಂ&ೆ ಸಮಯದ0P ಾ€ ಆ• +447895648639 £ÀA§j¤AzÀ ಾ:-2 ರವರ ಾ€ ಆt
q*ೈr ನಂಬ 8722445511 ಾ:-1, ಾ:-15 ಮತುV ಾ:-16 ರವರ ‚ೕ&ೊ cಾಗೂ $=Iೕ
MೊOೆಯ0Pರುವ ಒಂದು $=IೕವನುJ ಕಳFm9 "ಇದು "ೇವಲ &ೆ6ಲ ಅƒೆ3ೕ !ಾ\ೆ ಸಂ„ೆ ೆ...ಷr ಎXಾP
ಇXೆ"ಾ† % Eೕ=?ಾ cಾಗೂ ೋ ಯr Eೕ=?ಾಗಳ0P ‡r ೆ% $=Iೕ ೈರr ಅಗ0'ೆ"
ಎಂದು W ೆu ಕಳFm9ರುOಾV!ೆ. ಾ:-2 ರವರು - EAVèö£À°è Who's this, call JAzÀÄ W ೆu
Kಾ=ದುn, ನಂತರ ಸದ- ಾ€ ಆ• q*ೈr ಂದ?ಾವR'ೇ ಉತVರ ಬಂ^ರುವR^ಲP. ಅ'ೇ ^ನ
@ಾU 9-30 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ ಾ€ ಆt +447895648639 ನಂಬ ಂದ ಾ:-2 ಮತುV ಾ:-3 ರವರುಗ[.ೆ
ಾ€ ಆ• W ೆuಗಳF ಪ'ೇ ಪ'ೇ ಕಳFm9ದುn cಾಗೂ ಹಣ"ಾDS *ೇ="ೆ ಇಟು3 ಇXೆ"ಾ† %
Eೕ=?ಾ cಾಗೂ ೋ ಯr Eೕ=?ಾಗಳ0P ೆ% $=IೕವನುJ cಾಕುವR'ಾS *ೆದ-"ೆ W ೆu
ಗಳನುJ ಕಳFm9ರುOಾV!ೆ.
ಾ:-2 ರವರು @ಾU 9-47 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ ಾ€ ಆ• q*ೈr +447895648639 ನಂಬ UÉ
ಅªÀರ ಾ€ ಆt q*ೈr ನಂಬ 8722445511 ಂದ "ಾr Kಾ=ದುn ಆ@ೋHಯು "ಾrನುJ
-Mೆ%3 Kಾ=ರುOಾV!ೆ.
^!ಾಂಕ 26-12-2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 6-02 ¤«ÄµÀ¢AzÀ ©.n«AiÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¢Ý ªÁ»¤AiÀÄ°è
ಪ ಾರ ಾದ ಬ.ೆ‰ /ೕ&ೋ ಮತುV $=Iೕ iPt ಮತುV 3 "ೋ ಹಣ "ೊಡ*ೇ"ೆಂದು W ೇu
Kಾ=ದುn ಾ:-2 ರವರು !ೋ=ದ "ೆಲ ೇ ೆ"ೆಂŠಗಳ0P +447895648639 ನಂಬ ಂದ ಕಳFm9ದn
/ೕ&ೋ ಮತುV $=Iೕ iPt ಅನುJ ಆ@ೋHಯು =0ೕ€ ‹ಾ ಎವ-ªÀ Kಾ=ರುOಾV!ೆ. ನಂತರ
ಾ:-2 ರವರು ತಮ] q*ೈr ನಂಬ 8722445511 ಂದ ಸಂMೆ 6-14 ಗಂ&ೆ cಾಗೂ 6-18 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ
+447895648639 ನಂಬgï.ೆ ಾ€ ಆt "ಾr Kಾ=ದುn ಾ:-2 ರವರ "ಾr ಅನುJ ಆ@ೋHಯು
-Mೆ%3 Kಾ=ರುOಾV!ೆ.
12
£ÀAvÀgÀ +447895648639 £ÀA§gï ¤AzÀ ಪ'ೇ ಪ'ೇ ಬಂದಂತಹ ಾ€ ಆt W ೆuಗಳನುJ
ಾ:-2 ಮತುV ಾ:-3 ರವರು ತಮ] q*ೈr /ೕ ನ0P ¹Ìçãï ಾ€ |Kಾ="ೊಂಡು ತಮ]
q*ೈrನ0P ಇಟು3"ೊಂ=ದುn, ನಂತರ ಆ ¹Ìçãï ಾ€ ಗಳನುJ 1ೆ „ೆ6Œ.ೆ ವ.ಾ m9 ಾ:-1
ರವ-.ೆ "ೊ 3ದುn ಾ:-1 ರವರು ^!ಾಂಕ 27-12-2021 ರಂದು ಮುಂ^ನ ತ hೆ.ಾS ಸದ- 1ೆ „ೈŒ
ಅನುJ ಾ:-4 ಮತುV ಾ:-5 ರವರ ಸಮjಮ cಾಜರು ಪ=9ದನುJ |ಅKಾನತುV ಪ=9 ಮುಂ^ನ
ತ hೆ.ಾS ಎ•.ಎ .ಎr ತ•ರವ-.ೆ ಕಳFm9ರುತV'ೆ.
^!ಾಂಕ 28-12-2021 ರಂದು ಾ:-14 ರವರನುJ +447895648639 ನಂಬ ನ ಬ.ೆ‰
$Žಾರ8ೆ KಾಡXಾS +447895648639 ನಂಬ ಅನುJ ಾ:-13 ರವರು ಬಳಸುUVರುವR'ಾS U[9ದುn
ಾ:-13 ರವರು ಯು."ೆ ಯ0P ಾgಸಂಗ KಾಡುUVದುn, ಾ:-13 ರವರನುJ /ೕ ಮುhಾಂತರ $Žಾರ8ೆ
KಾಡXಾS ಾ:-6 ರವರು ಯು."ೆ 9• *ೇ"ೆಂದು "ೇ[ದ Wೕ@ೆ.ೆ ಾ:- 13 ರವರು
+447895648639 q*ೈr £ÀA§gÀ C£ÀÄß ^!ಾಂಕ 25-12-2021 ರಂದು Oೆ.ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಾ:-6
ರವ-.ೆ +447895648639 q*ೈr ನಂ§gïನುJ cಾಗೂ ಾ€ ಆ• ಆi3 ೇಷ ಓ HಯನುJ ಾ€
ಆ• ಮುhಾಂತರ ಾ:-6 ರವ-.ೆ ೕ=ರುವR'ಾS U[9ರುOಾV@ೆ.
^!ಾಂಕ 29-12-2021 ರಂದು ಾ:-6 ರವರನುJ $Žಾರ8ೆ.ೆ ಕ@ೆತಂದು $Žಾರ8ೆ KಾಡXಾS
ಾ:-13 ರವ-ಂದ ಪ„ೆದು"ೊಂ=ದn +447895648639 q*ೈr ನಂಬ ಮತುV ಾ€ ಆ•
ಆi3 ೇಷ ಓ HಯನುJ ಾ€ ಆ• ಮುhಾಂತರ ಆ@ೋH?ಾದ @ಾಹುr ಚಂದ ೇಖ ¨sÀ€
ಈತ .ೆ ೕ=ರುವR'ಾS cೇ["ೆಯನುJ ೕ=ದುn cಾಗೂ ಆ@ೋHಯು ^!ಾಂಕ 27-12-2021 ರಂದು
ಾJt Žಾ€ "ಾr Kಾ= ನನJ cೆಸರನುJ ?ಾ-ಗೂ ºÉüÀ¨ÉÃqÁ ¨ÉÃgÉ ?ಾ@ೋ cೇಸರನುJ cೇಳF
ಎಂಬ ಸಂaಾಷ8ೆಯನುJ ಾ:-6 ರವರು @ೇ"ಾqïð ªÀiÁrzÀÝ£ÀÄß 65 © ಇಂ=ಯ ಎ$„ೆ ಆPïÖ
ಮೂಲಕ ಾ:-9 ಮತುV ಾ:-10 ರವರ ಸಮ%ಷಮ ಅKಾನತುV ಪ=9"ೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ^!ಾಂಕ 10-
02-2022 ರಂದು ಆ@ೋHಯ Kಾದ- ಧ' ಯನುJ ಾ:-11 ಮತುV ಾ:-12 ರವರ ಸಮjಮ Kಾದ-
ಧ' ಯನುJ ಪ„ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಎ•.ಎ .ಎr ಮ= ಾಳ ರವ-.ೆ ಾ:-6 ರವರು ೕ=ರುವ 1ೆ „ೆ6Œ
ಅನುJ ಆ@ೋHಯ Kಾದ- ಧ' ಯನುJ ಧ' cೋ0"ೆ.ಾS ಕಳFm9ರುOೆV. ನಂತರ ^!ಾಂಕ 14-01-
2022 ರಂದು ಾ:-6 ರವರು Kಾನg !ಾg?ಾZೕಶರ ಮುಂ'ೆ 164 9ಆ H9 -Oಾg ತಮ] ಸe ಇŽಾ'
cೇ["ೆಯನುJ ೕ=ರುOಾV@ೆ......"
The petitioner is caught in the web of crime. After the petitioner
being brought into the web of crime, a panchanama is drawn
13
seizing the mobile phone and other materials. The panchanama
assumes significance for a decision in the lis. It reads as follows:
" ೇದ!ೆ,
99 ಮm\ಾ ಸಂರj8ಾದಳದ0P /0ೕ ಇ 1ೆಕ3 ಆS ಕತ ವg ವ mಸುUVರುವ
ಹಜ@ೇs ಎ iXೆPೕ'ಾ ಆದ !ಾನು ಬರದು"ೊಟ3 -/ೕ€ K!ೆಂದ@ೆ,
^!ಾಂಕ 29-12-2021
ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮ]0P ೇ^9"ೊಳFYವR'ೇ!ೆಂದ@ೆ ^!ಾಂಕ 27-12-2021 gÀAzÀÄ »jAiÀÄ
ಅZ"ಾರಗಳF Kೌ"ಕ ಆ'ೇಶದ Wೕ@ೆ.ೆ ೈಬ "ೆ6ಂ /0ೕ 7ಾ8ೆ q.ಸಂhೆg 16/2021 ಕಲಂ
66(9), 67, 67(ಎ) ಐ ಆ%3, ಮತುV 384 ಐH9 ಪ ಕರಣದ0P ಪ-z Kಾ ರವರನುJ $Žಾರ8ೆ Kಾ=
KಾmU ಸಂಗ m9 ಸದ- "ೇ9ನ ಆ@ೋH ಮತುV ಗುKಾ ಅ ಾEಗಳನುJ ಪOೆVKಾ= cಾಜರು
ಪ=ಸುವಂOೆ ನನJನುJ cಾಗೂ 9ಬ--ಂ^ಯವ@ಾದ H9 12145 ಪರಶು@ಾ• *ಾ¹äà ಮತುV H9 13048
ಸEೕ Eಜ ನJವ ರವರನುJ !ೇಮಕ Kಾ=ದುn ಅದರಂOೆ !ಾವRಗಳF ^!ಾಂಕ 28-03-2021 ರಂದು
MಾಪRರ"ೆD cೋS ಪ-8ೆ Kಾ ರವರನುJ aೇ Kಾ= $Žಾರ8ೆ Kಾ=ದುn ಪ-z Kಾ ರವರ q*ೈr
ನಂಬ 9901628263 .ೆ ಕ@ೆ ಬಂ^ದn ನಂಬ 00447895648639 ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ8ೆ Kಾ='ಾಗ ಈ
ನಂಬ ಬ.ೆ‰ ನನ.ೆ .ೊUVXಾP ಆದ@ೆ ಇದು ಯು!ೆ&ೈŠ iಂ˜ ಡ• 'ೇಶದ ನಂಬ ಆSರುOೆV. ಆದ@ೆ
ನಮ] ಅ%ಕ ವ0Xಾ ರವರು $'ಾgaಾgಸ"ಾDS ಯು!ೆ&ೈŠ iಂ˜ ಡ• ನಂಬ 'ೇಶದ0P
ಉಪIೕSಸುUVದn q*ೈr ನಂಬ 00447717278928 ಆSರುOೆV ಎಂದು U[9ದಳF. ನಂತರ
ವ0ೕXಾ ರವ-.ೆ ದೂರ ಾz ಮುhಾಂತರ ಕ@ೆ Kಾ= ನಂಬ 00447895648639 ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ8ೆ
Kಾ='ಾಗ ಈ ನಂಬ ನಮ] MಾಪRರ ಊ-ನ *ಾrಯ ೆJೕmತ!ಾದ @ಾ"ೇs ಎಂಬವ .ೆ ಆ
Xೈ ಮುhಾಂತರ ನಂಬ 00447895648639 ಮತುV ಓ HಯನುJ @ಾ"ೇಶ .ೆ ಾ€ ಆ•
ಮುhಾಂತರ ೕ='ಾnS U[9ದರು. ನಂತರ @ಾ"ೇs ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ8ೆ Kಾ='ಾಗ ವ0Xಾ ರವರು
@ಾ"ೇs /ೕ ನಂಬ 7575999777 ಅನುJ ೕ=ದುn @ಾ"ೇs ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ8ೆ Kಾ='ಾಗ ಆತನ
ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸWೕತ ಮcಾ@ಾಷ†ದ *ಾಂ*ೆ cೋSರುವR'ಾS $ಷಯ U[ದು ಬಂ^ರುOೆV. ನಂತರ
@ಾ"ೇs ಬ.ೆ‰ KಾmU ಸಂಗ m9'ಾಗ @ಾ"ೇs *ಾಂ*ೆ |ಂದ ಮcಾ@ಾಷ†ದ ಪ-!ಾ.ೆ ಬಂದು
ಾಸ ಾSರುವR'ಾS U[ದು ಬಂ^ರುತV'ೆ.
^!ಾಂಕ 29-12-2021 ರಂದು !ಾವRಗಳF ಮcಾ@ಾಷ†ದ ಪ-!ಾ.ೆ cೋS ಅ0P @ಾ"ೇs ©£ï
C¤¯ï PÀĪÀiÁgï CtÚ¥Àà£ÀªÀgï, ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 24 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À £ÀA.91/1, ®Qëöäà ¤ªÁ¸ï, gÀd¥ÀÆvï
UÀ°è, EAr gÀ¸ÉÛ, ©eÁ¥ÀÄgÀ gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀA§gï 00447895648639 ಬ.ೆ‰
$Žಾರ8ೆ KಾಡXಾS ಸದ- ನಂಬರನುJ !ಾನು ವ0Xಾ ಕ„ೆ|ಂದ ನಂಬ ಮತುV ಓ HಯನುJ
14
ಪ„ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ನನ.ೆ ಯು."ೆ ಯ0P ಪ-ಚಯ ಾSದುn @ಾಹುr ಚಂದ ೇಖ ಭ€ ಎಂಬುವನು ನನ.ೆ
ಸ!ೆ Kಾಡಲು ಯು."ೆ ನಂಬ *ೇ"ೆಂದು "ೇ[ದn ಆದ "ಾರಣ !ಾನು ವ0Xಾ ಕ„ೆ|ಂದ ನಂಬ
ನಂಬ 00447895648639 ಮತುV ಓ H ನಂಬ 899-876 ಅನುJ ಪ„ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ನನ.ೆ
"ೊ 3ರುOಾV@ೆ.
ವ0Xಾ ಕ„ೆ|ಂದ ಪ„ೆದು"ೊಂಡ ನಂಬ 00117895648639 ಮತುV ಓ 9 ನಂಬ 899-
876 ಅನುJ @ಾಹುr ಭ€ q*ೈr ನಂಬ 9449016666 .ೆ ಾ€ ಆ• ಮುhಾಂತರ ಕಳFm9
"ೊ 3ರುOೆVೕ!ೆ. ಅ'ಾದ ನಂತರ ಆ ನಂಬ Oೆ.ೆದು"ೊಂಡು @ಾಹುr ಭ€ ಏನು Kಾ=ದ ಎಂದು ನನ.ೆ
U[^ರುವR^ಲP. ಇದಲP'ೆ @ಾಹುr ಭ€ ಬ[ ಆತನ ಉಪIೕSಸುUVದn q*ೈr ನಂಬ ಗಳF
9341399999, 9342777777, 93415555555 ಆSರುOೆV. @ಾಹುr ಭ€ $\ಾ¸Àದ ಬ.ೆ‰ $Žಾರ
Kಾ='ಾಗ @ಾಹುr ಭ€ *ೆಂಗಳ,-ನ ಆ . ನಗರದ. ನಂ 70, !ಾ@ಾಯಣಪ... *ಾP%, 5!ೇ Wೖ
ರ ೆV, ಆ . ನಗರ, *ೆಂಗಳ,ರು-560032 ರ0P ಾಸ ಾSರುOಾV@ೆ. ಸದg @ಾಹುr ಭ€
ಎ0PರುOಾV!ೆಂದು ನನ.ೆ U[^ರುವRದಲP ಎಂದು U[9ದನು.
@ಾ"ೇಶನನುJ ಸದ- "ೇ9ನ $Žಾರ8ೆ.ಾS ^!ಾಂಕ 29-12-2021 ರಂದು ಪ-!ಾ^ಂದ
ಇಂ=.ೋ ಏ Xೈ $Kಾನದ0P ಮ`ಾgಹJ 2-20 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ @ಾ"ೇs ಮತುV ಅವರ ತಂ'ೆ ೕಅ r
ಕುKಾ ಅ8ೆšಪನವ ರವರ MೊOೆಯ0P *ೆಂಗಳ,-ನ ಸಂMೆ ಸುKಾರು 4-00 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ ಬಂ^ದುn ನಂತರ
ಸಂMೆ 5-30 ಗಂ&ೆ.ೆ ೈಬ "ೆ6ಂ /0ೕ 7ಾ8ೆಯ 7ಾ8ಾZ"ಾ-ಯವರ ಮುಂ'ೆ @ಾ"ೇs ರವರನುJ
ಮುಂ^ನ $Žಾರ8ೆ.ಾS cಾಜರು ಪ=9 ವರ^ ೕ=ರುOೆVೕ!ೆ.
¸À»/-
[ಹಜ@ೇs ಎ iXೆPೕ'ಾ , H.ಐ]"
The panchanama indicates that the number has emanated from UK
and the call was on 25-12-2021. It further indicates that the sim
had already been transferred by one Shivaleela, to one Rakesh and
from Rakesh to the petitioner. If this has happened, it is
ununderstandable as to how the complainant sees the messages or
calls of the Personal Assistant of his father as the sim was still in
15
the possession of Rakesh, as at 6.30 p.m. it is alleged to have been
handed over to the petitioner. But, the photographs and the ransom
call, according to the charge sheet or the complaint, comes about at
4.30 p.m. If one Rakesh or Shivaleela had the sim even at 6.30
p.m. how could the complainant see the photographs or the ransom
message at 4.30 p.m. on the same day from UK number, allegedly
in possession of the petitioner is again ununderstandable.
Therefore, the story of the complainant would tumble down like a
pack of cards, not because of suspicion, but because of glaring
improbability.
12. The allegation is, fake and obscene videos seen. The
mobile is seized; 39 seconds video is allegedly downloaded from the
mobile of the Personal Assistant. This is the news item. This was
spread and aired on electronic media. The video admittedly did not
contain any sexual explicit act or content. The two women who are
allegedly in the company of the complainant, also give their
statements, that those are the videos and photographs that they
have uploaded on their Instagram account. The extracts from the
phone, as per the extraction report is clearly indicative of the fact
16
that they are found in the Instagram account. No FSL report is
sought even with regard to the alleged obscene videos. There is no
evidence that the petitioner has indulged in editing and sharing the
videos, as the sim itself is allegedly given to the petitioner at 6.30
p.m. and the call or the videos are circulated at 4.30 p.m.
Therefore, the very theory of the prosecution appears to be faulty.
13. I deem it appropriate to notice the other offences. The
allegation is demand of ransom, as obtaining under Section 384 of
the IPC which deals with extortion and reads as follows:-
"384. Punishment for extortion.--Whoever commits
extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with
fine, or with both."
Section 384 finds its ingredients in Section 383 of the IPC. It reads
as follows:
"383. Extortion.--Whoever intentionally puts any
person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any
other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put
in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable
security or anything signed or sealed which may be
converted into a valuable security, commits "extortion"."
(Emphasis supplied)
17
Section 383 mandates that the accused should intentionally put any
person in fear of any injury to that person and thereby dishonestly
induces the victim to deliver any property or valuable security on
the fear put by the accused. There should be delivery of property.
Mere accusation of extortion will not suffice. Interpretation of
Section 383 of the IPC need not detain this Court for long or delve
deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of ISAAC
ISANGA MUSUMBA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA1, has held as
follows:
"3. We have read the FIR which has been annexed to the
writ petition as Annexure P-7 and we find therefrom that the
complainants have alleged that the accused persons have shown
copies of international warrants issued against the complainants
by the Ugandan Court and letters written by Uganda Ministry of
Justice and Constitutional Affairs and the accused have
threatened to extort 20 million dollars (equivalent to Rs 110
crores). In the complaint, there is no mention whatsoever
that pursuant to the demands made by the accused, any
amount was delivered to the accused by the
complainants. If that be so, we fail to see as to how an
offence of extortion as defined in Section 383 IPC is made
out. Section 383 IPC states that:
"383. Extortion.--Whoever intentionally puts any
person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other,
and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to
deliver to any person any property or valuable security or
anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a
valuable security, commits 'extortion'."
1
(2014) 15 SCC 357
18
Hence, unless property is delivered to the accused person
pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is made
out and an FIR for the offence under Section 384 could
not have been registered by the police.
... ... ...
7. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash the impugned FIR
and we further direct that if the passport of any of the
petitioners has been impounded on account of the impugned FIR
which we have quashed, the same shall be released forthwith."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that unless the property is delivered to the
accused person, pursuant to the threat, no offence of extortion is
made out and an FIR for offence under Section 384 of the IPC could
not have been registered, by the Police thereon. If the finding of
the Apex Court, is paraphrased to the facts, obtaining in the case at
hand, it would become unmistakably clear that the offence of
Section 384 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioner. Threat,
undoubtedly is alleged, but there is no delivery of any property
pursuant to the threat, and if there is no ransom paid, or any
property delivered, the theory of extortion stumbles, as it lacks the
ingredients of Section 383 and thus no offence under Section 384
can be made out.
19
14. The other offence is the one punishable under Section 201
of the IPC. Section 201 of the IPC deals with destruction of
evidence. Section 201, in the case at hand, is not even attracted as
there is no evidence of extortion even established, in the case at
hand. While dealing with Section 201 of the IPC the Apex Court in
the case of DINESH KUMAR KALIDAS PATEL v. STATE OF
GUJARAT2 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
5. Several contentions have been raised on merits. That
apart, the appellant has also raised a question of law as to
whether the conviction under Section 201 IPC could have been
maintained while acquitting him of the main offence under
Section 498-A IPC. The learned counsel have placed reliance on
the decisions of this Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of
Punjab [Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177:
AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 Cri LJ 154] , Kalawati and Ranjit
Singh v. State of H.P. [Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of
H.P., (1953) 1 SCC 86 : AIR 1953 SC 131 : 1953 Cri LJ 668] ,
and Suleman RehimanMulani v. State of Maharashtra [Suleman
RehimanMulani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 :
1968 Cri LJ 1013] .
6. In Palvinder Kaur [Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab,
(1952) 2 SCC 177: AIR 1952 SC 354: 1953 Cri LJ 154] , this
Court held as follows: (AIR p. 356, para 14)
"14. In order to establish the charge under Section
201 of the Penal Code, 1860, it is essential to prove that an
offence has been committed--mere suspicion that it has
been committed is not sufficient--that the accused knew or
had reason to believe that such offence had been committed
and with the requisite knowledge and with the intent to
2
(2018) 3 SCC 313
20
screen the offender from legal punishment causes the
evidence thereof to disappear or gives false information
respecting such offences knowing or having reason to
believe the same to be false."
The conviction in this case was ultimately set aside on the
aforementioned legal position and the facts.
7. The Constitution Bench decision in Kalawati [Kalawati
and Ranjit Singh v. State of H.P., (1953) 1 SCC 86 : AIR 1953
SC 131 : 1953 Cri LJ 668] may not be of much assistance in this
case since the facts are completely different. The co-accused
was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the main offence, and
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, this Court
deemed it fit to convict Kalawati only under Section 201 IPC.
8. Relying on Palvinder Kaur [Palvinder Kaur v. State of
Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177 : AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 Cri LJ
154], this Court in Suleman Rehiman [Suleman
RehimanMulani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 :
1968 Cri LJ 1013] , made the following observation: (Suleman
Rehiman case [Suleman RehimanMulani v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 : 1968 Cri LJ 1013] , AIR p. 830,
para 6)
"6. The conviction of Appellant 2 under Section 201
IPC depends on the sustainability of the conviction of
Appellant 1 under Section 304-A IPC. If Appellant 1 was
rightly convicted under that provision, the conviction of
Appellant 2 under Section 201 IPC on the facts found cannot
be challenged. But on the other hand, if the conviction of
Appellant 1 under Section 304-A IPC cannot be sustained,
then, the second appellant's conviction under Section 201
IPC will have to be set aside, because to establish the
charge under Section 201, the prosecution must first prove
that an offence had been committed not merely a suspicion
that it might have been committed--and that the accused
knowing or having reason to believe that such an offence
had been committed, and with the intent to screen the
offender from legal punishment, had caused the evidence
thereof to disappear. The proof of the commission of an
offence is an essential requisite for bringing home the
offence under Section 201 IPC -- see the decision of this
Court in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [Palvinder
21
Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177: AIR 1952 SC
354: 1953 Cri LJ 154] ."
It is necessary to note that the reason for acquittal under
Section 201 in the above case was that there was no
evidence to show that the rash and negligent act of
Appellant 1 caused the death of the deceased. Hence, the
court acquitted Appellant 2 under Section 201. The
observation at para 6 has to be viewed and analysed in
that background.
9. In Ram Saran Mahto v. State of Bihar [Ram Saran
Mahto v. State of Bihar, (1999) 9 SCC 486 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
254] , this Court discussed Kalawati [Kalawati and Ranjit
Singh v. State of H.P., (1953) 1 SCC 86 : AIR 1953 SC 131 :
1953 Cri LJ 668] and Palvinder Kaur [Palvinder Kaur v. State of
Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177 : AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 Cri LJ 154]
. It has been held at paras 13 to 15 that conviction under the
main offence is not necessary to convict the offender under
Section 201 IPC. To quote: (Ram Saran Mahto case [Ram Saran
Mahto v. State of Bihar, (1999) 9 SCC 486 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
254] , SCC pp. 490-91)
"13. It is not necessary that the offender himself
should have been found guilty of the main offence for the
purpose of convicting him of offence under Section 201. Nor
is it absolutely necessary that somebody else should have
been found guilty of the main offence. Nonetheless, it is
imperative that the prosecution should have established two
premises. The first is that an offence has been committed
and the second is that the accused knew about it or he had
reasons to believe the commission of that offence. Then and
then alone can the prosecution succeed, provided the
remaining postulates of the offence are also established.
14. The above position has been well stated by a
three-Judge Bench of this Court way back in 1952,
in Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab [Palvinder Kaur v. State
of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177 : AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 Cri
LJ 154] : (AIR p. 356, para 14)
'14. In order to establish the charge under
Section 201 of the Penal Code, it is essential to prove
that an offence has been committed--mere suspicion
that it has been committed is not sufficient--that the
22
accused knew or had reason to believe that such offence
had been committed and with the requisite knowledge
and with the intent to screen the offender from legal
punishment causes the evidence thereof to disappear or
gives false information respecting such offences knowing
or having reason to believe the same to be false.'
15. It is well to remind that the Bench gave a note of
caution that the court should safeguard itself against the
danger of basing its conclusion on suspicions however
strong they may be. In Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of
H.P. [Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of H.P., (1953) 1
SCC 86 : AIR 1953 SC 131 : 1953 Cri LJ 668] a Constitution
Bench of this Court has, no doubt, convicted an accused
under Section 201 IPC even though he was acquitted of the
offence under Section 302. But the said course was adopted
by this Court after entering the finding that another accused
had committed the murder and the appellant destroyed the
evidence of it with full knowledge thereof. In a later decision
in Nathu v. State of U.P. [Nathu v. State of U.P., (1979) 3
SCC 574 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 733] this Court has repeated the
caution in the following words: (SCC p. 575, para 1)
'1. Before a conviction under Section 201 can be
recorded, it must be shown to the satisfaction of the
court that the accused knew or had reason to believe
that an offence had been committed and having got this
knowledge, tried to screen the offender by disposing off
the dead body.'
(emphasis supplied)
10. In V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala [V.L. Tresa v. State of
Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549: 2001 SCC (Cri) 573] , this Court has
discussed the essential ingredients of the offence under Section
201 IPC at para 12: (SCC p. 555)
"12. Having regard to the language used, the following
ingredients emerge:
(I) committal of an offence;
(II) person charged with the offence under Section 201
must have the knowledge or reason to believe that
the main offence has been committed;
(III) person charged with the offence under Section 201
IPC should have caused disappearance of evidence
23
or should have given false information regarding the
main offence; and
(IV) the act should have been done with the intention of
screening the offender from legal punishment."
11. In Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra
[Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502 : (2007) 3
SCC (Cri) 426] , this Court discussed Kalawati [Kalawati and
Ranjit Singh v. State of H.P., (1953) 1 SCC 86 : AIR 1953 SC
131 : 1953 Cri LJ 668] , Palvinder Kaur [Palvinder Kaur v. State
of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177 : AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 Cri LJ
154] , Suleman Rehiman [Suleman RehimanMulani v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 : 1968 Cri LJ 1013] and V.L.
Tresa [V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549 : 2001
SCC (Cri) 573] among others. The essential ingredients for
conviction under Section 201 IPC have been discussed at para
18: (Sukhram case [Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7
SCC 502: (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 426] , SCC pp. 510-11)
"18. The first paragraph of the section contains the
postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining
three paragraphs prescribe three different tiers of
punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each
situation. To bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC,
the ingredients to be established are: (i) committal of an
offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section
201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an
offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with the
said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence;
and (iv) the act should have been done with the intention of
screening the offender from legal punishment or with that
intention he should have given information respecting the
offence, which he knew or believed to be false. It is plain
that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence
must be the primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly
needs any emphasis that in order to bring home an offence
under Section 201 IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient.
There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the
accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to
believe that the offence had been committed and that the
accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to
screen the offender, known or unknown."
24
12. In Vijaya v. State of Maharashtra [Vijaya v. State of
Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 296 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1998] ,
though this Court held that the decision in V.L. Tresa [V.L.
Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549 : 2001 SCC (Cri)
573] was of no assistance to the State in the particular facts, it
reiterated that: (Vijaya case [Vijaya v. State of Maharashtra,
(2003) 8 SCC 296 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1998] , SCC p. 299, para
10)
"10. ... There is no quarrel with the legal principle
that notwithstanding acquittal with reference to the
offence under Section 302 IPC, conviction under Section
201 is permissible, in a given case."
13. The decisions in Vijaya [Vijaya v. State of
Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 296 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1998]
and V.L. Tresa [V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549
: 2001 SCC (Cri) 573] were noticed in State of
Karnataka v. Madesha [State of Karnataka v. Madesha, (2007) 7
SCC 35 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 292] . While the appeal of the
State was dismissed, this Court in unmistakeable terms held
that: (Madesha case [State of Karnataka v. Madesha, (2007) 7
SCC 35: (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 292] , SCC p. 39, para 9)
"9. It is to be noted that there can be no dispute that
Section 201 would have application even if the main offence
is not established in view of what has been stated in V.L.
Tresa [V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549 :
2001 SCC (Cri) 573] and Vijaya [Vijaya v. State of
Maharashtra, (2003) 8 SCC 296 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1998]
cases. ..."
14. Thus, the law is well settled that a charge under
Section 201 IPC can be independently laid and conviction
maintained also, in case the prosecution is able to
establish that an offence had been committed, the person
charged with the offence had the knowledge or the
reason to believe that the offence had been committed,
the said person has caused disappearance of evidence
and such act of disappearance has been done with the
intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment. Mere suspicion is not sufficient, it must be
proved that the accused knew or had a reason to believe
that the offence has been committed and yet he caused
25
the evidence to disappear so as to screen the offender.
The offender may be either himself or any other person."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that if the offence is not complete, invoking
Section 201 of any incomplete offence becomes an abuse of the
process of law. Person charged with under Section 201 of the IPC
must have the knowledge of the offence being committed;
committed would mean completed and then would destroy the
evidence. Section 384, in the case at hand, is not even complete. It
is only alleged. Therefore, there can be no offence even under
Section 201 of the IPC.
15. Section 511 of the IPC which is also laid deals with
attempt to commit an offence. For the reasons so rendered qua
Sections 384 and 201, allegation invoking Section 511 of the IPC
also would slump. The other offences that remain are the offences
under the Act. Section 66C of the Act reads as follows:
"66-C. Punishment for identity theft.--Whoever,
fraudulently or dishonestly make use of the electronic signature,
password or any other unique identification feature of any other
person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years and
26
shall also be liable to fine which may extend to rupees one
lakh."
Section 66C mandates that whoever dishonestly makes use
electronic signature, pass word or any other unique identification is
said to be committing the said offence. There is no allegation of
that kind in the case at hand. Section 67 of the Act, punishes
whoever publishes or transmits or causes to be published or
transmitted in the electronic form, any material which is lascivious
or is prurient would become an offence. The said offence also
cannot be laid, on the score that the alleged videos or photographs
admittedly do not contain any such material. The statements of
those women themselves, are that they have uploaded the videos
and photographs on their Instagram account. Thus, there is no
offence made out under Sections 66 and 67 of the Act. Section 67A
of the Act is also laid again loosely, as it deals with publishing or
transmitting any sexually explicit material. In the subject crime,
there is no material of the kind that has been transmitted.
Therefore, none of the offences that are laid against the petitioner
have any foundation. The documents produced by the petitioner or
the evidence are unimpeachable and are of that sterling quality that
27
would entail quashment of the entire proceedings against the
petitioner, failing which it would become an abuse of the process of
law and result in patent injustice.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Charge Sheet in Crime No.16 of 2021 filed in
C.C.No.3446 of 2022 and pending before the 1st
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore
stands quashed.
Pending applications if any, also stand disposed, as a
consequence.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ