Going Back On Promise To Marry Not Cheating But Failure To Repay Loan Will Attract S.420 IPC: Karnataka High Court On Film Director's Plea

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan thus dismissed the director's plea for quashing the First Information Report registered against him under sections 420, 323, 417 of IPC, based on a complaint filed by one Shazia Asra.

"Of course, promise to marry and cheating will not attract, but obtaining loan and not repaying the same will amount to criminal intention to cheating her attracting Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, the petitioner is required to undergo investigation before the Investigating Officer," it observed.

It was alleged that petitioner is a film director by profession and the complainant was acquainted with him and got attracted to him. Thereafter they stayed together between 2015 and 2016 and subsequently, the petitioner went to Australia and after returning, there was some clash between them. Therefore, MLC assault case was registered in K.C.General Hospital. Thereafter, he was found missing.

She also alleged that he borrowed Rs.9.50 lakhs from her and returned only Rs.2 lakh and he also promised to return the same but did not return and also failed to marry her. It was alleged that the accused abused her using filthy language. Following the registration of the case, the accused came to be arrested and later released on bail.

The petitioner said that the information given by the complainant before the police on 15.12.2017 is not the first information. As per her own complaint she has already made a complaint on 18.11.2017 itself and the MLC (Medico-Legal Case) case was registered. Therefore, it is not first information.

Further, it was contended that if at all the petitioner is said to have assaulted her, no ingredients to constitute offence under Section 420 of IPC are made out. Furthermore, it was contended that both the parties are married, the complainant even having a grown up child and the question of marrying each other does not arise.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying that the police investigated the case partly where they collected rental receipts for having stayed together at Yeshwantpur. Statements were also recorded, challan for having transferred Rs.7.50 lakhs is also recovered by the police. Hence, the matter requires further investigation.

The bench on going through the details said, "No documents produced before this Court to show that the first information registered by the police is second information which is not permissible under law."

It added, "Therefore, merely she has stated in her complaint that MLC case was registered in K.C.General Hospital that itself cannot be a ground to say that case has already been registered against the petitioner on the complaint of respondent No.2. Merely registering the MLC assault case itself is not a ground to say that a criminal case has been registered."

It added that the Court cannot go into investigating the matter and therefore, the case is required to be investigated by the police.

Case Title: Stanley Joseph v. State

Case No: Criminal Petition no 1172/2018

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 147

Date of Order: April 18, 2022

Appearance: Advocate K N Praveen Kumar for petitioner; Advocate Mahesh Shetty for R1