Bengaluru Court Refuses To Discharge Actor Rajnikanth's Wife In Alleged Forgery Case, Says Prima Facie Case Made Out

A Court in Bengaluru recently rejected the discharge application filed by superstar Rajanikanth's wife, Latha Rajanikanth, accused in a criminal case involving alleged forgery in relation to the film Kochadaiiyan, by a Chennai-based advertising company.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Jyoti Shantappa Kale, while rejecting the discharge application filed under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, said “The documents of the prosecution and the statement does show that, there is prima-facie case to proceed against the accused. Thus, the accused No.1 has not made out any justifiable grounds to discharge her from the alleged offences.”

Background

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, leading to disputes over a Tamil cinema titled Kochadian.

It had been stated that news agencies had been extensively reporting on the aforesaid dispute between Mediaone Global Entertainment Limited, since the petitioner, who is the wife of actor Rajnikanth, the protagonist of the film, 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 approached the Civil Court at Bangalore against all the news agencies, seeking a restraint in publishing news on the allegations made against her and her family. The injunction was granted in December 2014.

However, it was alleged that in the course of doing so, the petitioner had created a fictitious body named "Publishers and Broadcasters Welfare Association of India," and issued a letter in its name, to create pressure on the defendant and obtain a temporary injunction.

This led to proceedings under inter alia Section 195 (false evidence), 199 (false statement), 420 (cheating) of the IPC.

In February 2015, the plaint was returned for want of territorial jurisdiction, following which, the present private complaint was filed. Following this, a private complaint was filed by the complainant, which was referred to the Halasuru police station for investigation and which registered an FIR.

The accused then approached the high court seeking the quashing of the complaint, which was allowed. However, in an appeal filed before the Supreme Court, it was ultimately held to be a triable case.

The accused, seeking discharge, argued that she is innocent and has not committed any offences. It was stated that the allegations made by the complainant do not meet the requirements of the ingredients to constitute the alleged offences. The accused questioned the legitimate existence of the document relied on to make the allegations of forgery. Moreover, it was stated that the mere fact that the accused No.1 is the beneficiary of the letter under question cannot be a ground to impose criminal liability.

Further, it was submitted that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and the findings given in the charge sheet cannot be taken into entirety which lacks criminal liability.

Court's findings

The bench on going through the records and arguments made by the accused, noted that the prosecution has produced the said document, which is found at SL. No.318 of charge sheet. It said “It is not the case of prosecution that the said document dated 28.11.2014 was created by the accused No.1 in the court proceeding or in court. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused No.1 has created the document and taken benefit under the said document."

The court added that since the prosecution also alleged that the accused committed offences punishable u/s 420 of Cr.P.C., the bar u/s 195 of Cr.P.C cannot be made applicable to the case in its entirety.

The court held “Mere pleading that there are no allegations in the FIR, complaint and chargesheet and the matter is civil in nature, does not constitute valid grounds for discharge of the accused.”

It added “At the time of framing of charge court has to consider prima-facie materials to proceed against the accused and court cannot look into or search for the materials in the case of prosecution, which would end in conviction.”

The court is now likely to hear the parties on framing of charge on November 11.

Case Title: State by Halsur Gate Police Station AND Latha Rajanikanth

Case No: CRIMINAL CASE NO. 8355/2021.

Click Here To Read/Download Order