Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Accused’s Wife, Agents In Alleged Puja Cheating Involving Widow’s 5 Properties, 450g Gold

The second respondent alleged that, after her husband’s death, accused No. 1 represented that religious ceremonies and pujas could resolve her family’s problems. She allegedly provided money and valuables for those ceremonies and, over time, sold five properties, parting with the sale proceeds, approximately 450 grams of gold and cash.

Following her complaint dated 20 February 2020, Ramamurthy Nagar Police registered Crime No. 79/2020 for offences under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act, 2017. After investigation, the petitioners were charge-sheeted as accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5.

They sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 36830/2021, contending, among other things, that petitioner No. 1 was implicated only because she was accused No. 1’s wife, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 had merely acted as real-estate agents, and they were not named in the original complaint or FIR.

The petition was brought under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied the principle that, at the quashing stage, it considers whether the allegations and material collected during investigation, taken at face value, provide a basis for proceeding; it does not conduct a detailed assessment of evidence, determine witness credibility or decide guilt, which are matters for trial.

The alleged offences were under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, 120B and 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention and Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Act, 2017.

The Court considered that the prosecution relied on witness statements said to implicate the petitioners in the property-sale transactions and receipt of sale consideration.

It noted that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 carried on business outside Bengaluru, where the properties were located, and found it premature to accept their explanation that the complainant had independently contacted them after finding their details online; it also noted a prima facie connection between petitioner Nos. 1 and 2.

The Court held that whether the petitioners acted only in their professional capacity or participated in the alleged scheme, and whether petitioner No. 1 had any involvement beyond her relationship with accused No. 1, required examination at trial.

Their omission from the complaint and FIR did not, by itself, make the charge-sheet unsustainable, and the delay between the last sale in 2019 and the complaint in February 2020 was not sufficient to terminate the proceedings.

It dismissed the criminal petition and declined to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 36830/2021.