SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 40563

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4091 OF 2019

c/w

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4092 OF 2019

IN CRL.P.No.4091/2019

BETWEEN:

KARIM SAB @ KARIM PASHA

S/O MAOHAMMED ALI

AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

RESIDING AT #758, 10TH CROSS

MARALURU JANATHA COLONY

TUMKUR TOWN.

REAL NAME & DETAILS

ABDUL KAREEM

S/O MOHAMMED ALI

PERMANENT ADDRESS

NO.571/3, 7TH CROSS,

MARALURU DINNE,

TUMKUR-572 105.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.SANTHOSH.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY WOMEN POLICE STATION

TUMKUR-572 111

2

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING-560 001.

2.

AYESHA KUBRA

W/O SAJJAD AHMED

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

RESIDING AT IDGA MOHALLA CIRCLE

TUMKUR TWON

TUMKUR-572 111.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.ROHITH.B.J., HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.166/2018 ON THE

FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

JMFC

AT

TUMKUR

WHICH

IS

ARISING

OUT

OF

CR.NO.45/2018 OF WOMEN P.S., TUMKUR FOR THE

OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND

UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT AS AN ABUSE OF

PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC.,

IN CRL.P.No.4092/2019

BETWEEN:

1.

SHABANA BEGAM

W/O GOUSE PEER

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

RESIDING AT #758, 10TH CROSS

MARALURU JANATHA COLONY

TUMKUR TOWN-572111.

PERMANENT ADDRESS

KONEMADENAHALLI

GUBBI TALUK

KADABA, TUMKUR-572219

3

2.

GOUSE PEER

S/O MOHAMMED ABIB,

AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

RESIDING AT #758, 10TH CROSS,

MARALURU JANATHA COLONY

TUMKUR TOWN-572111.

PERMANENT ADDRESS

KONEMADENAHALLI

GUBBI TALUK

KADABA, TUMKUR-572219.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.SANTHOSH.B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY WOMEN POLICE STATION

TUMKUR-572111

REPRESENTED BY

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT BUILDING-560001.

2.

AYESHA KUBRA

W/O SAJJAD AHMED

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

RESIDING AT EDGA MOHALLA CIRCLE

TUMKURU TOWN

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.ROHITH.B.J., HCGP FOR R1;

R-2 SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.166/2018 ON THE

FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND

JMFC

AT

TUMKUR

WHICH

IS

ARISING

OUT

OF

CR.NO.45/2018 OF WOMEN P.S., TUMKUR FOR THE

4

OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND

UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT AS AN ABUSE OF

PROCESS OF LAW AND ETC.,

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR

ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

Charge sheet is filed alleging that accused No.1,

the husband of respondent No.2 and other accused are

the brother-in-law, father-in-law and mother-in law and

uncle of respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 was

subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically by all

the accused to bring additional dowry of Rs.10 lakhs for

construction of a house. On 29.03.2018 accused No.1,

who is her husband came back to India and C.W.Nos.2,

3 and 4 went to the house of accused No.1 on

16.04.2018 to advise accused No.1 not to harass

respondent No.2. At that point of time, the accused

Nos.1 to 6 abused the said witnesses and respondent

No.2 with filthy language and assaulted respondent No.2

with their hands.

5

The learned Magistrate after accepting the

charge sheet took cognizance of the offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with

Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961 and issued summons to the

petitioners-accused. Taking exception of the same, this

petition is filed.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the FIR was lodged by respondent No.2 as

a counterblast to the FIR lodged by accused Nos.1 and 4

against respondent No.2 and her family members and

police after investigation have submitted charge sheet in

C.C.No.5899/2018 and C.C.No.5714/2018. He further

submits that the allegations in the FIR arises out of

marital discord, however, it is given a criminal texture

so as to falsely implicate petitioners-accused and wreak

vengeance by making omnibus and general allegations.

Hence, he submits that the charge sheet filed against

the

petitioners-accused

in

the

absence

of

any

6

corroborative

material

so

as

to

constitute

the

commission of offences alleged against the petitioners-

accused is without any substance.

4.

On the other hand, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-

State submits that the charge sheet material clearly

discloses the commission of offences alleged against the

petitioners-accused and the same does not warrant

interference and sought for dismissal of the petitions.

5.

I have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties.

6.

A perusal of the documents annexed to the

petition indicate that accused Nos.1 and 4 had lodged

FIR against respondent No.2 and her family members.

The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet

in the said cases for various offences under the

provisions of IPC. The FIR was lodged by accused No.1

on 24.04.2018 and FIR lodged by accused No.4 was on

7

03.05.2018. Respondent No.2 lodged FIR on 08.05.2018

which clearly implies that FIR was lodged by respondent

No.2 is a counterblast to the FIR lodged by accused

Nos.1 and 4 so as to circumvent criminal proceedings

initiated against respondent No.2 and her family

members. The alleged incident had taken place on

16.04.2018 and the FIR was lodged on 08.05.2018

without offering any plausible explanation except stating

that after the alleged assault, she was taken for

treatment to the hospital. A perusal of wound certificate

discloses that respondent No.2 has sustained simple

injury due to the alleged assault but has not named

petitioners-accused for having assaulted her. In the

absence of any corroborative material, the charge sheet

filed

against

the

petitioners-accused

for

having

committed the alleged offence is without substance.

7.

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the

view that the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 is a

counterblast to circumvent the FIR lodged by accused

8

Nos.1 and 4 against respondent No.2 and her family

members and continuation of the criminal proceedings

would be an abuse of process of law, since the

possibility of the conviction of these petitioners-accused

is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i.

Criminal petitions are allowed.

ii.

The

impugned

proceedings

in

C.C.No.166/2018 pending on the file of II Addl. Senior

Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur, is hereby quashed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top