Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Actor Rajanikanth's Wife, Sustains Forgery Complaint

In partial relief to superstar Rajanikanth's wife Latha Rajanikanth, the Karnataka High Court has quashed charges of cheating, giving false statement and using evidence known to be false, levelled against her in a private complaint filed by a Chennai-based advertising company.A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the Magistrate's order to the extent of taking cognizance of a final report filed against her under Sections 196, 199 and 420 of the IPC. It is alleged that Latha filed a suit before a civil court in Bengaluru on the basis of a forged document and obtained an order of injunction, restraining media houses from reporting a criminal complaint lodged against her.The Court however sustained the order insofar as it takes cognizance for the offence under Section 463 as punishable under Section 465 of the IPC. The temporary injunction pertained to a financial dispute between complainant M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Private Limited and one Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited, which had produced Rajinikanth starrer Kochadiiyaan. It was alleged that Latha had executed a guarantee on behalf of Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited in favour of the complainant and had failed to honour it as the film went into losses.Case details: Complainant M/s Ad Bureau Advertising Private Limited had entered into a financial transaction with M/s Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited, which was represented by its Director one J.Murali Manohar generated disputes with regard to finances in connection with a Tamil cinema titled Kochadian. The said financial dispute generated wide publicity as it was in respect of a cinema that had its lead protagonist, a popular star in the Tamil cinema. All the electronic media wanted to publish the dispute between the Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited on the ground that the petitioner-wife of the said protagonist had executed a guarantee on behalf of Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited in favour of the complainant and had failed to honour it as the film went into losses. She then knocked 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 her and her family. The injunction was granted in December 2014. In February 2015, the plaint was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction following which, the instant private complaint was filed.Though the complaint was quashed by the High Court, the Supreme Court ultimately held that it is a triable case.It was alleged that a particular document which was not in existence in a media house and which also does not exist was produced before the civil Court at Bangalore in order to get jurisdiction to entertain the suit and obtain an order of injunction. Submissions: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appearing for the petitioner said the trial Court could not have taken cognizance in the light of specific bar under Section 195 of the CrPC as it is a document that was produced before the Court which is alleged to have been forged and Section 195(1)(b) read with Section 340 of the CrPC bars a private complaint being registered as the complainant has to report before whom the document is produced. Advocate S. Balakrishnan for the complainant said if the document after production before the Court is tampered with, it is only then the Court is required to register a complaint, as the document would become a custodia legis. Therefore, the private complaint in the case at hand was maintainable. He would further contend that the present one is a petition which is second in line and should be dismissed for want of maintainability as the Apex Court has clearly held that it is a triable issue and trial ought to have been permitted. Court findings: Firstly the court decided on the issue of maintainability of the second petition it said, "The circumstances that lead the petitioner to the doors of this Court is taking of cognizance and issuance of summons on the final report/charge sheet. On this changed circumstance, the second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the earlier one, even if it were to be dismissed, is maintainable." Referring to the apex court order wherein it held that it was a case for trial, the bench said, "The Apex Court at the time it rendered its order, the present case was at the stage of registration of crime and was pending. In the light of other judgments rendered by the Apex Court on the point, this petition would be maintainable and the hearing of the contentions on their merit would become available." As regards the cognizance being taken by the magistrate court of the chargesheet the bench said , "In the case at hand qua the facts obtaining herein the private complaint registered by the 2nd respondent invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. is founded on...

Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheating Case Against Actor Rajanikanth's Wife, Sustains Forgery Complaint

Mustafa Plumber

Tags