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.