Case Title:
Samantha Christina Delfina Willis & Anr Vs The State Of Karnataka & Ors
Date of Order:
June 1, 2022
Bench:
Justice M Nagaprasanna
Parties:
Samantha Christina Delfina Willis &Anr. (Petitioner) & State of
Karnataka & Ors. (Respondent)
Subject
A writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court on the grounds that it was filed by the power of attorney holder who did not know what the case is exactly about.
Important provisions
Article 226, 227 of the Indian Constitution, Section 482 of CrPC.
Overview
The complainant in the said case got married to a woman through an online website after he claimed that his wife (1st petitioner) took away his mother’s jewels in the name of a photo shoot and then ran away with it to Kolkata and then to the United Kingdom.
He also complained that she induced him to pay Rs. 7.5 crores for the purchase of a property in the name of both husband and wife.
Despite the request of the complainant, his wife did not return to his home in Bangalore and later after returning from the United Kingdom, the petitioners sought the annulment of the marriage.
However, the respondent (complainant) by then had already filed that complaint before the Police in Bangalore mentioning the above-stated grounds under Sections 406, 419, 420, 380, 384, 389, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
He also alleged that the petitioners were not even Muslims but Christians who concealed their identities and posed themselves as Muslims.
Issues Raised
Whether or not the writ petition filed by the power of attorney holder is maintainable under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution?
Arguments advanced by the Petitioners
- The counsel on behalf of the petitioner contended before the Hon’ble Court that, the respondents in their complaint tried to change the civil nature of the pure matrimonial dispute to a criminal offence.
- He further contended that since the jewels taken by the wife (1st petitioner) and the money transferred to the account of 1st petitioner to purchase the property was during the existence of the marriage hence, no criminal offence has been conducted, as had been stated in the complaint of the respondents.
- Additionally, he contended that the property so purchased was in the names of both the wife and the husband (5th respondent), therefore, there was no misappropriation of funds and inducement to purchase the property in the case, as complained of. Hence, Sections 406 and 420 are not attracted in the said case.
- The petitioner based on the above-mentioned arguments sought the annulment of the proceedings stating that the case in no way involved a criminal offence.
Arguments advanced by the Respondents
- The counsel on behalf of the respondents contended that the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution read with Section 482 of CrPC was not maintainable as it was filed by a power of attorney holder and not the petitioners themselves.
- He further added that since the writ itself was not maintainable in the very first place, therefore, the contentions mentioned within it could not be proceeded with.
- He also contended that the 1st petitioner, in the name of a photo shoot, took away the jewels of her mother-in-law to the United Kingdom and never returned it. Also, she induced her husband to pay Rs. 7.5 crores for the purchase of a property. Therefore, the respondents sought the dismissal of the writ petition.
Judgment Analysis
- The Hon’ble High Court observed that the writ petition filed by the power of attorney holder is not maintainable because the power of attorney holder is not aware of what the petition is about, the facts of the case and the reason for filing the petition.
- The court further went on to say that since the petition was filed in Bangalore but signed by the executants before the Notary at London, it could not be asserted that they are well aware of the case.
- The Hon’ble Court further referred to the case of Amrinder Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi in which it was held that an accused cannot be represented by a third party such as the power of attorney holder.
- Accordingly, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petition stating the above-mentioned grounds and imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 on the petitioners to be submitted with the High Court Legal Services Authority.
Conclusion
One’s knowledge about the facts of the case and the reason why the petition in the concerned case is being filed is important because lack of knowledge or no knowledge at all, about something for which a person has willfully agreed, might lead to the difficulties in future. What if later, at the time of any sort of accountability, the same person argues before the Court that since he was unaware of the facts and circumstances, he is neither accountable nor liable for any consequences arising out of his actions? Therefore, it is very essential to ensure if a person who has filed the petition is competent for the same or not.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
