Supreme Court Restores Cheating Case Against Actor Rajinikanth's Wife Latha; Gives Her Liberty To Seek Discharge Before Trial Court
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 10) restored a cheating case against Tamil superstar Rajinikanth's wife Latha on a complaint filed by a Chennai based advertising company in relation to the alleged non-payment of dues for the promotion works for the 2014 film "Kochadaiiyaan". The Court however granted Latha Rajinikanth to file an application before the Trial Court seeking discharge from...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (October 10) restored a cheating case against Tamil superstar Rajinikanth's wife Latha on a complaint filed by a Chennai based advertising company in relation to the alleged non-payment of dues for the promotion works for the 2014 film "Kochadaiiyaan". The Court however granted Latha Rajinikanth to file an application before the Trial Court seeking discharge from the case.
A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and MM Sundresh was hearing two Special Leave Petitions filed against a judgment delivered by the Karnataka High Court in August 2022 which granted partial relief to Latha Rajinikanth, by quashing the charges for cheating and giving false evidence against her. The High Court however sustained the forgery charge against her. Challenging the High Court's order, the advertising company(Ad Bureau Advertising Ltd) and Latha filed separate petitions in the Supreme Court, with the former challenging the quashing of cheating charge and the latter challenging the refusal of the High Court to quash the other charges.
The Supreme Court disposed of both the petitions by restoring the original chargesheet. While doing so, the Court cited an earlier order passed in 2018 in relation to the complaint where it was observed that the complainant had a triable case.
“In view of the earlier order passed by this Court on 10th July 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 2018, the only way open to the petitioners(Latha) in SLP(Crl.) No. 8327 of 2022 is either to file an application seeking discharge or to face the trial." the bench said in the order.
The bench further clarified that it has not expressed anything on the merits of the matter. It also left it open to the parties to resolve the disputes through mediation. The Court clarified that Trial Court is free to decide the application for discharge on its merits without being influenced by the Supreme Court's order. The Court also dispensed with the physical presence of Latha Rajinikanth until and unless the same is required by the Trial Court.
Background
The complaint is based on an allegation that Latha Rajinikanth produced a forged document before a Civil Court in Bengaluru to obtain a media gag order regarding the reporting of a financial dispute over the payments for the 2014 film "Kochadaiiyaan", which was directed by Rajinikanth’s daughter Soundarya Rajinikanth.
The advertising company, the complainant in the case, alleged that another company M/s Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited, failed to honour the financial commitments with respect to the film. It was alleged that Latha had executed a guarantee on behalf M/s Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited and failed to fulfill the guarantee when the film went into losses.
She then knocked on the doors of the civil Court at Bangalore against all the news agencies – 70 in number – seeking a restraint in publishing news with regard to allegations made against her and her family. The injunction was granted in December 2014.
Ad Bureau Advertising Ltd then filed the criminal complaint alleging that a forged document was produced before the Civil Court at Bangalore in order to get jurisdiction to entertain the suit and obtain an order of injunction.
Latha challenged the registration of the complaint before the High Court in 2015. The High Court in 2016 quashed the entire proceedings holding it to be a civil dispute. An appeal was filed against this in 2018 before the Supreme Court by the complainant which set aside this High Court order and held that it was a triable case and the court should not have quashed the entire complaint.
After the Supreme Court’s direction, the proceedings continued and police filed a chargesheet in 2021. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued a summons to the respondent.
Aggrieved by this, Latha once again approached the HC which passed the impugned order in Aug 2022.
At the High Court, a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the Magistrate's order to the extent of taking cognizance of the final report under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 196 (false evidence), 199 (false statement), and 420 (cheating).
The Court however sustained the order insofar as it takes cognizance under Section 463/465 of the IPC relating to the offence of forgery.
As regards the cheating case, the High Court said that there was no allegation of inducement to part with the property of the complainant. Regarding Sections 196 and 199 IPC, the Court held that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of those offences on a police final report as there should be a complaint in writing by the Court concerned.
The High Court, however, did not find grounds to interfere with the charges of forgery in the case. It said that the bar of cognizance is not attracted when the document is said to be forged outside the court. “Therefore, the allegation under Section 463 of the IPC so made against the petitioner and the cognizance taken by the learned magistrate only insofar as it concerns Section 463 of the IPC cannot be interfered with,” it said.
Aggrieved by the same, both parties approached the Supreme Court.
Case title: M/S AD BUREAU ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. vs. LATHA RAJANIKANTH SLP(Crl) No. 009818 - / 2022, LATHA RAJANIKANTH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA SLP(Crl) 8327/2022