Karnataka High Court
Smt.Nasreen Sultana vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2016
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.569 OF 2016
BETWEEN:-
1. SMT. NASREEN SULTANA
W/O NAYEEM NYAMATHULLA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT. DOOR NO 1, PLOT NO 10/A
PRIVILEGE HOMES, 3RD CROSS
RAJIVGANDHINAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI
BANGALORE -560 068.
2. SMT. WAHIDA BEGUM
W/O SRI. NISAR AHMED
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO 5, PLOT NO 10/A
PRIVILEGE HOMES, 3RD CROSS
RAJIVGANDHINAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI
BANGALORE -560 068.
3. SRI. NAYEEM NYAMATHULLA
S/O NYAMATHULLA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO 1, PLOT NO 10/A
PRIVILEGE HOMES, 3RD CROSS
RAJIVGANDHINAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI
BANGALORE -560 068.
4. SRI. NISAR AHMED
S/O LATE SILAR SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT DOOR NO 5, PLOT NO 10/A
2
PRIVILEGE HOMES, 3RD CROSS
RAJIVGANDHINAGAR, BOMMANAHALLI
BANGALORE -560 068.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: RAHAMATHULLA SHARIFF, ADV.,)
AND:-
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY H S R LAYOUT P S
BANGALORE CITY -560 068.
2. M. THASIN BEGUM
D/O M. ABDUL MUJEEB
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT NO 101, SAMA NAGAR
TIRUPATTUR
VELLORE DISTRICT - 586 044.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)
-------
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES P/U/S
498(A), 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT
IN C.C.NO.27320/2015 DATED 21.11.2015 ON THE FILE OF VI
A.C.M.M., BANGALORE WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A.
THIS CRL.P HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, PRADEEP D.
WAINGANKAR J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.27320/2015 pending on the file of VI Addl. CMM, Bangalore. 3
2. One Smt. Thasin Begum filed a complaint before HSR Layout Police Station, Bangalore wherein it is alleged that on 19.3.2011, her marriage was celebrated with one Mohammed Reehan as per the customs prevailing in muslims at Meera Mahal Kalyana Mantap, Hosur. Before marriage, engagement ceremony between the complainant and Mohammed was held on 23.1.2011 and at that time, an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- a Honda car and a diamond ring were presented to Mohammed- accused No.1. At the time of marriage, 80gm of gold ornaments apart from cash of Rs.50,000/- and a cot and bed were given to accused No.1. After marriage, she was residing in matrimonial house at Rajivgandhinagar alongwith her husband and inlaws. In the same building, elder sister of her husband was residing. Few days after the marriage, the father-in-law of the complainant picked up quarrel with the complainant alleging that at the time of marriage, 100 soverigns of gold as demanded by them was not given. As such, she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment. Though panchayat was held, it did not materialize. In the 4 month of January 2015, both husband and wife started residing in a rented house at HSR Layout. There also she was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by her husband accused No.1. Due to unbearable ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her, she filed a complaint before HSR Layout Police Station. On the basis of the said complaint, crime No.782/2015 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The police during the course of investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses viz., Dr. Shabbir Ahamed, Abdul Muzeeb, H. Hasmat Ali, Mohammed Ali, Tasina Begum, Nasima Banu and Mohammed Abdul. After recording their statement, the police reached a conclusion that the complainant was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment by her husband and inlaws. Therefore a charge-sheet came to be filed against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and two others in C.C.No.27320/2015. When the case was posted for framing charge, accused have rushed to this Court and filed this petition to quash the proceedings.
5
3. I have read the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant, who is none other than the wife of Mohammed Reehan and also charge-sheet filed against all the petitioners. From reading the averments made out in the complaint, it is evident that the complainant made allegations against her husband and in-laws, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 5- the petitioners herein. The accused No.1 husband has not filed the petition. The complainant herself has admitted that she was residing separately alongwith her husband in HSR layout when she filed the complaint. If that be so, she has unnecessarily included her in-laws and lodged the complaint against them alleging that she was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by her inlaws alongwith her husband. It is also borne out from the records that it is purely a dispute between husband and wife and the family members have nothing to do with the dispute between the husband and wife. It appears that civil dispute in O.S.No.213/2015 filed by the husband against his wife-complainant is also pending before the Family Court for dissolution of the marriage on 6 19.3.2011. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances and the allegations made out in the complaint and that the complainant and her husband-accused No.1 were residing separately in HSR layout at the time of filing of this complaint, the continuation of the proceedings as against all other members, who are petitioners herein would amount to abuse of process of law.
4. Hence, petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated against these petitioners (accused Nos.2 to 5) in C.C.No.27320/2015 on the file of VI Addl. CMM, Bangalore are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-