Bengaluru, April 20, 2024 – The LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69), Sri Sabappa, has granted anticipatory bail to Chethana.N, a woman facing charges filed by her ex-husband, in a case marked by severe marital discord and allegations of forgery, cheating, and extortion. The court observed that the criminal complaint appeared to be a ‘revenge’ move stemming from existing case and counter-case litigation between the estranged couple.

The petitioner, Chethana.N, aged 35, had filed the application (Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3110/2024) under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., seeking protection from arrest in connection with Cr. No. 03/2024 registered by the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station. The charges against her and another accused, presumably her father, included grave offences under Sections 465 (Forgery), 468 (Forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (Using as genuine a forged document), 420 (Cheating), 384 (Extortion), 506 (Criminal intimidation), read with 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Genesis of the Dispute and Allegations

The criminal complaint was lodged by Yathish.K, the petitioner’s ex-husband, through a Private Complaint (PCR). The marriage between the couple was solemnized on February 16, 2009, and was first dissolved via a decree of divorce in MC. No. 2426/2013 on February 13, 2014.

The complainant alleged a complex series of fraudulent acts by the petitioner after the initial divorce:

• Property Duress: He claimed that after the divorce, he purchased a house in their joint names as a matter of goodwill, but the petitioner constantly pressured him to execute a release deed in her favour, which he eventually did on January 11, 2018, allegedly under duress.
• Forged Remarriage/Bigamy Threat: The most serious allegation was that the petitioner, in connivance with her father, suppressed the earlier divorce decree and used the original Certificate of Registration of Marriage to approach the Family Court again, seeking divorce in MC. No. 4475/2018. The complainant claimed he was forced to register their marriage once again and that the petitioner used this second registration certificate to threaten him with a Bigamy case. This threat allegedly gained potency because the complainant had married another woman, Shanthala, on June 1, 2014, requiring him to seek a second divorce from Shanthala due to “mounting pressure” from Chethana.N.
• Extortion: The complaint concluded that the petitioner’s entire motive, including lodging the complaint and filing the second divorce petition, was solely to extort money from him.

Petitioner’s Defense and the Context of Counter-Allegations

Chethana.N, through her counsel, Sri Ankith S. Reddy, argued that the allegations were “false, perverse and without any proof.” She contended that the police had “mechanically lodged the FIR” based on an email complaint.

The defense significantly highlighted the existence of a prior case: the petitioner had already filed a complaint against the complainant before the Chennammanakere Achukattu Police Station, registered as Cr. No. 137/2019, for offences under Sections 498A (Cruelty), 420, and 417 of the IPC (Dowry Case). The police in that case had already filed a charge sheet against the complainant.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the current complaint was filed by the ex-husband purely “in order to take revenge.” Furthermore, the defense pointed out that the complainant “very cleverly did not disclose the birth of the second child after the alleged divorce,” and that he has left the petitioner to care for the minor children alone while he lives a “life of comfort in the United Kingdom.” Her counsel argued that if she were arrested, her children would be “rendered homeless.”

Court’s Findings on Retaliation and Liberty

The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offences and the need for custodial interrogation for document verification and investigation, asserting that the petitioner might abscond or tamper with evidence.

However, the Court, after scrutinizing the records and the existing case and counter-case history, found merit in the petitioner’s claim of false implication. The judge explicitly noted: “In order to take revenge the complainant has filed this case against the petitioner. The respondent police issued notice to the petitioner and thereby, the petitioner has approached this court.”

The judge stated that “one thing is clear that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life,” and are triable by the Magistrate Court. Citing the principle that “bail is a rule, jail is exception,” the court found that Chethana.N had made out sufficient grounds for relief.

The Court emphasized the need to strike a balance to prevent “harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused” while safeguarding the investigation. Concluding that the prosecution’s apprehension could be met with stringent conditions, the court allowed the petition.

Conditions Imposed on Chethana.N

Chethana.N was granted anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond for Rs. 50,000/- with one surety for the like sum, subject to the following stringent conditions:

1. The petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer within 30 days from the date of the order and co-operate for investigation.
2. She shall not tamper with the Prosecution witnesses either directly or indirectly in any manner.
3. She shall cooperate for investigation and regularly appear before the concerned court as and when required.
4. She shall not abscond from the ordinary residence and must furnish the address proof to the concerned police.
5. She shall not indulge in any kind of offence.
6. She shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.
7. She shall mark the attendance in the respondent Police Station between 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. once in a month, specifically on the 2nd Sunday, until the filing of the final report.

The court warned that violation of any of these conditions would entitle the Investigating Officer to move for cancellation of the bail.