Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, a daughter and mother residing in London, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR registered in Crime No. 216 of 2021 at Hennur Police Station, Bangalore, for offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 380, 384, 389, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC. The FIR was lodged by the 5th respondent, the husband of the 1st petitioner, alleging that after their marriage on 06-06-2021, the 1st petitioner had deceitfully taken away his mother's jewellery and induced him to transfer Rs.7.5 crores for purchase of a property, and further that the petitioners were Christians who had posed as Muslims. The petitioners obtained transit bail from a Kolkata court on 19-11-2021 and then filed the present petition on 23-12-2021 represented by their power of attorney holder, Mr. Gautam Giri. The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable as it was filed through a power of attorney holder who was a stranger and had no personal knowledge of the allegations. The court framed three points for consideration: maintainability of the petition by a power of attorney holder, suppression of material facts, and whether the offences were made out. The court held that a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Articles 226/227 cannot be maintained by a power of attorney holder on behalf of the accused, relying on T.C. Mathai v. District & Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram (AIR 1999 SC 1385) and Amrinder Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi (Crl.M.C.1571/2021). It noted there was no averment that the power of attorney holder was aware of the facts, and the accused were not under any legal disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable without going into the merits of the allegations.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Maintainability of Petition by Power of Attorney Holder - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482; Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Articles 226/227 seeking quashing of an FIR cannot be maintained by a power of attorney holder on behalf of the accused, as the attorney is a stranger and cannot fight a proxy war. The power of attorney holder lacked personal knowledge of the facts and there was no averment of awareness of the case; nor did the accused suffer from any legal disability. Held, the petition is not maintainable, and the court did not go into the merits of the allegations. (Paras 9-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings is maintainable when filed by a power of attorney holder on behalf of the accused
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petition, filed under Articles 226/227 r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. through a power of attorney holder, was held not maintainable as the attorney is a stranger who cannot maintain a petition for quashing on behalf of the accused. The court did not consider the merits of the allegations.
Law Points
- A petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR cannot be maintained by a power of attorney holder on behalf of accused unless accused is under legal disability
- power of attorney holder is a stranger and cannot fight a proxy war
Case Details
2022 LawText (KAR) (06) 32
WRIT PETITION No.24602 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
Ajesh Kumar S., K.P. Yashodha, Vivek Reddy, K.G. Kamath
Samantha Christina Delfina Willis and Shakila Willis
State of Karnataka, The Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, The Sub Inspector, Hennur Police Station, Mr. Vasanth Kumar M., Inspector, Hennur Police Station, and Syed Ali Hindustani
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings
Remedy Sought
Quashing of FIR in Crime No. 216/2021 registered at Hennur Police Station, Bangalore, for offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 380, 384, 389, 506 read with Section 34 IPC
Filing Reason
The 5th respondent (husband) filed a complaint alleging that the 1st petitioner (wife) had taken away his mother's jewellery and fraudulently induced him to transfer Rs.7.5 crores, and that the petitioners posed as Muslims while being Christians; the petitioners sought to annul these proceedings as a false case arising from a matrimonial dispute
Previous Decisions
Transit bail granted by the Court at Kolkata on 19-11-2021
Issues
Whether the subject writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable at the hands of a power of attorney holder of an accused?
Whether the writ petition suffers from suppression of material facts entailing dismissal of the petition?
Whether in the facts of the case the offences alleged would meet their ingredients?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the FIR was a pure matrimonial dispute given a criminal colour, no ingredients of the alleged IPC offences were made out, and the property was jointly registered, hence no misappropriation or inducement occurred.
Respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable as it was filed by a power of attorney holder who was a stranger with no personal knowledge, the petitioners suppressed material facts while seeking interim relief, and on merits the 1st petitioner had lured the complainant to part with jewellery and Rs.7.5 crores deceitfully.
Ratio Decidendi
A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Articles 226/227 of the Constitution for quashing of criminal proceedings cannot be maintained by a power of attorney holder on behalf of the accused, unless the accused suffers from a legal disability. The power of attorney holder is a stranger and cannot fight a proxy war on behalf of the accused.
Judgment Excerpts
The Constitutional Courts have consistently taken a view that the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by a power of attorney holder is not maintainable.
There is no averment in the entire petition that the said power of attorney holder is aware of the facts of the case. ... the writ petition would not become maintainable.
Procedural History
Marriage between 1st petitioner and 5th respondent on 06-06-2021. Alleged torture from 12-06-2021. 1st petitioner left for Kolkata on 11-07-2021 and later flew to London. Both petitioners returned to Kolkata on 14-11-2021 seeking annulment of marriage. Before that, on 11-11-2021, the 5th respondent lodged a complaint leading to FIR No. 216/2021. On 19-11-2021, the petitioners obtained transit bail from the Kolkata court. They filed the present writ petition on 23-12-2021. The court heard the matter and reserved orders on 13-04-2022, pronouncing judgment on 01-06-2022 dismissing the petition as not maintainable.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 506, 380, 384, 389, 406, 419, 420, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
