Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.
Asma Khanum @ Noor Asma, S/O. Firoz Pasha and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of Karnataka by Gangamma Gudi and Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.5478 of 2016
Decided On : 09-07-2020
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3 and 4 – Indian Penal Code - Sections 498A, 324, 506 – Criminal Procedure Code - Section 161 – Demand of dowry – First Information Report - Whether FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by relatives of principal accused or FIR prima facie discloses a case of over implication by involving entire family of accused at instance of complainant who is out to settle her scores arising out of teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding - Whether it was a fit case to send appellants for trial when then FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to complainant demanding dowry from complainant - Whether a case was made out against appellants to proceed against them - Second respondent - First petitioner is younger sister and second petitioner is younger brother of said - Third petitioner is husband of first petitioner and fourth petitioner is father - Second respondent herein had lodged a complaint and on basis of said complaint an FIR was registered in Crime for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as against five persons - Petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.3 to 5 in said FIR - After investigation Police had filed charge sheet as against six persons including petitioner No.4 herein - In complaint it was averred that marriage of complainant with A1 marriage dowry was given by brothers of complainant and immediately after marriage husband started ill-treating complainant stating that he had married her against his will and he was in love with another girl whom he intended to marry - Complainant has stated that she withstood all cruelty meted out on her by her husband only with a hope that everything would be set right over a period of time – Held, Learned members of Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished - They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in criminal complaints - Majority of complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence - Learned members of Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious Endeavour to help parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem - They must discharge their duties to best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber peace and tranquility of society remains intact - Members of Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases – Unfortunately at time of filing of complaint implications and consequences are not properly visualized by complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment agony and pain to complainant accused and his close relations - Records clearly indicate that there are no specific allegations against petitioners in respect of ill-treatment either mental or physical torture meted out to respondent 2 – Therefore considering facts and circumstances of case and law laid down by Apex Court in recent judgment in case further proceedings initiated against petitioners 1 to 5 is liable to be quashed since ingredients of Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act are not attracted - Material on records does not disclose that any specific ill-treatment and harassment was meted out to respondent 2 while she was living with petitioners or when she was accompanied 5th petitioner – Therefore court do not find any good reasons to continue criminal proceeding initiated against petitioners 1 to 5 - In case on hand a careful reading of complaint averments and charge sheet materials clearly go to show that an attempt is made to implicate all immediate relatives of husband with an oblique motive - No specific averments are made as against petitioners with regard to their role played in respect of alleged acts - No reference is given with regard to any specific incidents wherein petitioners have actively participated - Complainant has only made sweeping allegations against petitioners - Further her husband were admittedly staying separately at West - Police have recorded statement of neighbors who have not spoken anything about petitioners visiting said house at West - Petitioners are sought to be implicated in crime solely for reason they are relatives of husband - Learned Magistrates while taking cognizance of criminal offences arising out of marriage dispute are required to be cautious especially when an attempt is made to falsely implicate relatives of husband without even there being any specific allegation as against them in complaint only with an intention to coerce and harass husband and his relatives - Provisions of law introduced by legislature for protecting weaker section should be used as a shield and not as a weapon - Judiciary in cases of misuse of such provisions of law is required to intervene otherwise it may have an adverse effect in a longer run - Petition is allowed
ORDER :
The accused Nos. 3 to 6 in C.C.No.3115/2016 pending on the file of 8th Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore City arising out of Crime No.142/2015 registered by Gangammagudi Police, Bangalore City, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 506 IPC read with Sections 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, 1961, have approached this court in this criminal petition with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings initiated as against them.
2. Though the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.Hashmath Pasha for the petitioners, Sri.Mohammed Tahir, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
4. The second respondent, who is the defacto Mohammed Zaheer on 01.07.2012. The first petitioner is the younger sister and the second petitioner is the younger brother of said Mohammed Zaheer. The third petitioner is the husband of first petitioner and the fourth petitioner is the father of Mohammed Zaheer.
5. The second respondent herein had lodged a complaint on 21.09.2015 and on the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered in Crime No.142/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 as against five persons.
6. The petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos.3 to 5 in the said FIR. After investigation, the Police had filed charge sheet as against six persons including the petitioner No.4 herein.
7. In the complaint it was averred that the marriage of complainant with Mohammed Zaheer (A1) marriage, dowry was given by the brothers of the complainant and immediately after the marriage, the husband started ill-treating the complainant stating that he had married her against his will and he was in love with another girl whom he intended to marry. The complainant has stated that she withstood all the cruelty meted out on her by her husband only with a hope that everything would be set right over a period of time.
It is further alleged in the complaint that the husband used to ill-treat her at the instigation of his mother. The complainant has also alleged that a meeting was held in Masjid and her husband and in-laws were advised not to ill-treat the complainant. After the said meeting, the complainant’s mother-in-law had requested the complainant and her husband to reside in a separate house at Jalahalli West, Bangalore-560 015 and accordingly, the complainant and her husband the complainant was pregnant, she was assaulted and sent to her mother’s house. On 26.06.2013, she gave birth to a male child.
Complainant has further stated that even after she started residing separately, she was being ill-treated by her husband’s relatives and there was a constant demand for payment of dowry. On 22.6.2015, her husband allegedly assaulted her and unable to withstand the same, she called the Police, who came and took her along with the child to Gangamma Gudi Police Station. However, the said police had refused to register a case on the basis of her statement and later on, her brothers admitted her to NIMHANS Hospital, Bangalore, wherein she was treated. Since the Police had refused to receive a complaint, the complainant had approached the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City on 21.09.2015 and on the basis of her complaint, FIR in Crime No.142/2015 was registered.
8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Hashmath Pasha appearing for the petitioners submits that, even if the entire complaint averments and charge sheet materials are perused, there is no specific allegation with regard to any overt acts as against the petitioners herein. He submits that, except a stray statement as against the third petitioner alleging that he had advised the complainant to meet the demands of her husband, there is no other specific allegation as against any of the petitioners. Even in the further statement recorded under Secti
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
