Karnataka High Court
Smt. Mariyam Fasihuddin vs State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2014
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3600/2012
BETWEEN :
1. Smt.Mariyam Fasihuddin,
D/o Mohammed Fasihuddin,
Aged about 25 years,
2. Sri. Mohammed Fasihuddin,
S/o late A.M. Fasaluddin,
Aged about 59 years,
Both are r/a No.14, 34th Cross,
TMCS Layout,
J.P.Nagar,
Bangalore 560 076. ... Petitioners
(by Sri.P.Usman, Adv for M/s.Hegde A/s)
AND :
1. State of Karnataka,
By Adugodi Police Station,
Bangalore,
Rep.by State Public Prosecutor,
Attached to High Court of Karnataka,
High Court of Building,
Annexe, Bangalore.
2. Sri.Shaik Fahed Ahmed,
-2-
s/o Sri.Shaik Altaf Ahmed,
Aged about 32 years,
R/a No.19B-3, Miller Apartments,
Miller Road, Benson Town,
Bangalore 560 046. ... Respondents
(By Sri. B.J.Eswarappa, HCGP for R1
Sri.M.T.Nanaiah, Sr.Adv., for
M/s.M.T.Nanaiah A/s for R2)
This Crl.P is filed under Section 482 of Criminal
Procedure Code praying to quash the charge sheet in
CC.No.23545/2011 dated 23.7.2011 filed by respondent No.1
Police against the petitioners for offences punishable under
Section 420 of IPC and the order dated 2.6.2012 passed in
CC.No.23545/2011 on the file of the VI ACMM, Bangalore,
taking cognizance of offences U/ 420 r/w 34 of IPC.
This Crl.P coming on for Hearing, this day the Court
made the following:
ORDER
Accused 1 and 2 in CC.No.23545/2011 pending on the file of VI ACMM, Bangalore, have come up in this proceeding seeking quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceeding, which is initiated for an offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Admittedly, the aforesaid criminal case is registered at the instance of second respondent-complainant, who is none other than the husband of first petitioner, Smt.Mariyam -3- Fasihuddin. Second petitioner is the father of first petitioner. The background, which has led to the filing of complaint in CC.No.23545/2011, is to the effect that in the wedlock between first petitioner-Mariyam Fasihuddin and second respondent- Shaik Fahed Ahmed, a male child by name Shaik Faisal Ahmed was born. It is the case of complainant that his wife has filed an application seeking passport in the name of their minor son and while filing the application, the first petitioner and second petitioner have impersonated the second respondent, as if the application is filed by him. The complaint, which was filed by him before the first respondent-Police, which is within the limits of VI ACMM, Bangalore, was referred to investigation and it is seen that they have filed a charge sheet for an offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC, which is sought to be quashed in this proceeding.
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners. Perused the complaint as well as charge sheet filed in to the Court. Since the charge sheet is already filed by the police, after conducting a thorough enquiry, it is not open for this Court to close the proceeding initiated pursuant to the charge sheet filed in -4- CC.No.23545/2011. The submission on behalf of petitioners is that the act of impersonation or other things as alleged in the complaint not being reflected in the charge sheet, the charge sheet which is filed for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is required to be quashed.
4. After hearing the counsel for petitioners and on going through the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that when there is a charge sheet, which is filed for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, quashing the entire proceeding merely on the ground that there is no material to establish the impersonation of complainant by accused 1 and 2/petitioners in making an application to secure the passport of the minor child of first petitioner and second respondent, does not arise, at this juncture. However, it would suffice to say that the petitioners are at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate in CC.No.24545/2011 by making necessary application seeking discharge, on the ground that in the investigation the charges leveled against the petitioners are completely dropped except for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, for which no material is available to -5- demonstrate that they have committed an act of cheating against second respondent.
5. With the aforesaid observations, reserving liberty to the petitioners, this criminal petition, filed seeking quashing of proceeding in CC.No.23545/2011, is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-