Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Rahamathulla vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2022
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4632 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1 . MOHAMED RAHAMATHULLA
S/O ABDUL HAMEED
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
2. S ABDUL HAMEED
S/O LATE ABDUL SHUKUR
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
3. AYASHA A
W/O ABDUL HAMMED
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
4. HAJIRA BANU
D/O ABDUL HAMEED
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HER FATHER
S ABDUL HAMEED
ALL FOUR PETITIONERS ARE
R/AT #32/2 12TH CROSS
NEAR CITIZEN SCHOOL
SAGAYAPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 084
5. ZEENATH @ ZEENATHUNNISA
SENIOR CITIZEN WOMEN
W/O LATE ABDUL RASHEED
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
R/AT NO.17 3RD BLOCK 3RD STAGE
-2-
BASAVESHWARNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 068
6. ABDUL LATHIEF M Y
S/O H M YAKOOB
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
7. SHABANA @ HALEEMA BE
W/O ABDUL LATHIEF M Y
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS. 6 AND 7
ARE R/AT NO.21/A
1ST MAIN ROAD
SUBHASH NAGARA
NEAR KARUMARIYAMMA TEMPLE
BENGALURU - 560 068
PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED HAROON RASHEED, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHO K G HALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 045
REP BY THE LEARNED
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHO HAL POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 037
REP BY THE LEARNED
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001
3. SMT TARANNUM SIDDIQUA
W/O MOHAMMED RAHMATHULA
D/O MOHAMMED NAQUIB PASHA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
-3-
AT OLD NO.27/1 NEW NO.300
JAMIA MASJID MAIN ROAD
ISLAMPUR
HAL VIMANAPURA POST
BENGALURU - 560 017
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY HCGP FOR R1 AND R2
SRI. VASEEMUDDIN A. ADV., FOR R3 )
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS
HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1.QUASH THE FIR
AND ALL RELATED PROCEEDINGS IN VIDE CR.NO.386/2020
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 324,498A,506 OF IPC
AND ALSO R/W SEC.3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT PENDING
ADJUDICATION ON THE FILE OF THE XI A.C.M.M,
BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER NO.1/ACCUSED
NO.1 TO 7; 2.TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE GUIDELINES IN
CLARIFYING THE POSITION OF LAW REGARDING ZERO FIR
FOR THE SAKE OF JUSTICE AND PREVENTION OF ABUSE OF
LAW AND LEGAL PROCESS. 3.TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE
GUIDELINES IN CLARIFYING THE POSITION OF LAW
REGARDING BAIL OF FIRST FIR WHICH MAY BE
CONSIDERED EVEN FOR THE SUBSEQUENT SECOND FIR
WHEN THE OFFENCE ARE SAME BUT FOR SAKE OF ARREST
AND HARASSMENT FILED IN OTHER JURISDICTION POLICE
STATION TO PREVENT OF ABUSE OF LAW AND LEGAL
PROCESS 4.TO IMPOSE EXEMPLARY COSTS FOR THE ABUSE
OF SOCIAL ENACTMENTS UPON DE FACTO COMPLAINANT
PAYABLE TO THE STATE TOWARDS WELFARE OF WOMEN.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4, 6 and 7 along with petitioner No.5/accused No.5 (petition dismissed as abated) under Section 482 -4- of Cr.P.C., to quash the FIR and all related proceedings registered in K.G. Halli Police Station vide Cr.No.386/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 324,498A,506 of IPC and also r/w Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, respondent No.3 lodged a complaint before HAL police on 28-10-2020, wherein she has given written complaint alleging that she is married to 1st petitioner- Mohammed Rahmatulla at Sir Haji Ismail Sait Masjid, Frazer Town, Bangalore, on 21-12-2018. It is alleged that, at the time of marriage, there was huge demand of dowry from the father of the 1st petitioner and it was fulfilled by her parents. Thereafter, they stated to have demanded a car and property which her parents -5- informed to give within three months. Thereafter, she went to the matrimonial house at Sagayapuram, Bangalore. On the very next day of the marriage, her mother-in-law/ accused No.3 forced her to do all household works, like, washing clothes, mopping, cleaning vessels, washing toilets etc. Even when she was sick, she was not taken to doctor, if at all they agreed, they used to send along with accused No.3, her father-in-law. It is also alleged that accused No.4/petitioner No.4 said to be instigating the other accused for torturing her and accused No.1 again used to assault her black and blue. Her father-in-law, accused No.3 used to enter her room without her permission and check private things and tried to abuse her twice when she was in deep sleep and threatened her that if she disclose it to anyone, he would tell her husband to divorce her.
4. It is also stated that grandmother of the 1st petitioner was staying in the house and did not allow her to go to her mother's home and if any body comes -6- to the accused house, they used to humiliate them in front of her and they were warned not to visit and she is unable to talk with her parents and they also threatened to get second marriage for the 1st petitioner, if they have not fulfilled the demand of car and property. There was meeting held in the presence of one Noor and Shakeel, laundry owner, where the accused said to have provoked and brain washed her husband. She also alleged that on 10-12-2019, accused No.1 tried to kill her by throttling and suffocating and slapped her continuously on her left ear due to which, her ear drum is damaged and hearing capacity reduced. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 also said to have provoked and instigated her husband/accused No.1 by saying that they will take care of police and all legal aspects of the matter. On 10-12-2019 she managed to survive and thereafter, on 11-12-2019 they pushed her out of the house and demanded to get Rs.25,00,000/- from her father as he has got amount on account of his retirement from the service. Since -7- then she was staying at her father's house. She has suffered throat pain and then informed her parents regarding it, they took her to Bowring hospital for treatment and on the advise of Doctor MLC was done on 18-12-2019. Thereafter, she went to Sahayavani for help, after first session of counseling they told they would sort out the matter in Jammath, but they delayed the same and she is staying in her parents house.
5. In August 2020, she called her father-in-law, he told that they are searching another bride for her husband and ordered to vacate her room and take back all my belongings. Thereafter, she tried to contact the 1st petitioner and unable to contact him and petitioners stopped her and not allowed her to enter the house. They called Hoysala police and alleging trespassing into their house. Police advised her to go to HAL Police station and lodge a complaint. Therefore, she lodged the complaint. After registering the case by HAL Police in Crime No.278/2020, case was transferred to -8- Kadugondanahalli Police station and again numbered as Cr.No.386/2020.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no complaint made by the complainant, even though she has lodged the complaint to Parihara Vanitha Sahayavani Santwana centre and she has not stated anything about the other family members and there is no ingredients to attract an offence under Section 498A of IPC. Thereafter, she has given another complaint to HAL Police. Even though she has not narrated a point, it is because of the police they got transferred the same to K.G. Halli police. Petitioner No.4 is a minor girl, aged 15 years, studying in 10 th Standard and she is meritorious student. Even though there is no allegation against her, she has made as an accused. Accused No.5, deceased grandmother of the 1st petitioner is residing separately at Basaveswarangar and she never came and quarrelled with the complainant. The other accused persons, namely, accused Nos. 6 and 7 were staying at -9- Subhashnagar at Singasandra at Hosur Road and they have not at all came to the house of accused No.1. Accused No.1 is working in a Software Company. Respondent No.3 has filed the false case against them to harass them. Inspite of filing the complaint to the Vanitha sahayavani, she did not chose to appear before them for any enquiry. But managed to get transferred the case to K.G.Halli police abusing the process of law. Hence, they prayed to quash the FIR and all related proceedings. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner No.5/accused No.5 was reported dead on 30-01-2022 and hence, her petition is dismissed as abated.
7. Per contra, the learned HCGP submits that FIR is still in preliminary stage, investigation is pending and there are serious allegations against the petitioners in the complaint and therefore, the matter requires detailed investigation and prayed for dismissing the petition.
-10-
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 objected the petition contending that golden ornaments were recently returned to the complainant by the petitioners, still they have chain with the petitioners which reveals the demand of dowry and receipt of dowry. The allegations are very serious against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and accused Nos. 6 and 7 have instigated as they are influential persons. In view of the allegation that accused Nos. 1 to 3 quarelled with the complainant/ respondent No.4 and accused No.4 also provoked her mother and 1st petitioner to assault the complainant, the matter requires detailed clarification. The ingredients of complaint clearly attracts Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act and Section 498A of IPC and as they assaulted the complainant which attracts Section 324 of IPC.
9. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned HCGP and learned counsel for respondent No.3, perused the records, especially the complaint filed before the -11- Hoysala Police as well as Mahila sahaya vani. On perusal of both complaints, of course, in the first complaint given on 16-4-2019 before Mahila sahayavani, she has not elaborately stated on giving and taking dowry and continuous harassment. However, she has given complaint against accused No.1, parents-in-law/accused Nos. 2 and 3, the name of accused Nos. 4 and 5 is not mentioned in the first complaint which was given before mahila sayaha vani. Subsequently, she has filed complaint to the HAL police as her parents house is situated within the jurisdiction of HAL Police station, where she has given details in writing/typed complaint before the Police regarding the demand and taking dowry and further demand of dowry including car and property subsequent to the marriage and engagement given by the parents which attracts Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.
10. In the said complaint, complainant has stated that her mother-in-law insisted for doing house hold course and instigating accused No.1 to abuse her. Her -12- sister-in-law used to instigate her mother-in-law and Accused No.3 used to enter her room without permission and check her personal belonging, abused her twice and also threatened her not to disclose the same to her husband and if she discloses to her husband, he will advice him to give divorce and subsequently, she has made so many allegations against accused Nos. 1 to 3. However, the allegations against accused No.4 who is minor girl, aged 15 years is, she has also instigated her parents- in- law against her. Except a stray sentence, there is no specific allegation against her regarding harassment made by her and her name was also not mentioned in the first complaint and subsequently, it has been added. Accused Nos. 6 and 7 are said to be the relatives of accused No.1 and they used to abuse and also stated to have instigated the parents of accused No.1. She further alleges that on 10-12-2019, accused No.1 tried to kill her by throttling and she became suffocating and slapped continuously and there is chances of -13- attracting 323 and 307 IPC. She has escaped, went to the hospital and obtained treatment. She has also stated that she brought the elders of their community for settlement but it was not done. The allegations against accused Nos. 6 and 7 is, they said to have told that they would take care of the police and other legal aspects. Except that, there are no further allegations whether they committed any harassment in respect of matrimonial dispute. Such being the case, the matter requires detailed investigation as against accused Nos. 1 to 3. However, there is no specific ingredients about any of the offences alleged against accused Nos. 4,6 and 7. Though there is allegations against accused No.5, she is reported dead. Therefore, I am of the view that FIR cannot be quashed against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and there are ingredients of Sections 323 , 498A and 307 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
11. Therefore, I pass the following:
-14-
ORDER (i) Petition filed by the accused Nos. 4, 6 and 7 are partly allowed.
(ii) The criminal petition filed by the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 3 is hereby dismissed.
(iii) Petition of the accused No.5 is dismissed as abated.(iv) FIR against petitioner Nos. 4, 6 and 7
in Crime No.386/2020 registered based on the transferred complaint in FIR No.278/2020 of HAL Police Station are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE tsn*