Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Ayaz Shaikh vs The Staet By Banasawadi Police Station on 1 July, 2021
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
1
Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JULY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1497 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED AYAZ SHAIKH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O: LATE MOULALI SHAIKH,
OCC:-SUPERINDENT,
OFFICE OF LOKAYUKTHA,
ANANTPUR ROAD,
NEAR CENTRAL LIBRARY,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
BALLARI-583 10.
R/AT:- #19, PWD QUARTERS,
Z.P.OFFICE ROAD,
FORT, BALLARI-583 101.
2. WAHEEDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
W/O JEHANGIR,
OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
PRESENTLY R/AT:- PLOT NO:53,
2ND STAGE, HANUMAN NAGAR,
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
BELAGAVI-590 019.
3. JEHANGIR,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED OFFICER AT KGF,
PRESENTLY R/AT:- PLOT NO:53,
2ND STAGE, HANUMAN NAGAR,
2
Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE,
BELAGAVI-590 019.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NATARAJ.G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY BANASAWADI
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU,
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT BENGALURU-560 001.
2. NAFISA IBRAHIM,
W/O: FAYAZ AHMED SHAIHA MULLA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.07, 5TH CROSS,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
BENGALURU CITY-560 084.
KARNATAKA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR/CRIME
NO.501/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND
SEC.3, 4 OF D.P.ACT BEING REGISTERED IN THE
BANASAWADI P.S., BANGALORE AND PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE 11TH ACMM, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE CITY
IN SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PETITIONERS.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
2. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of the petition are:
Respondent No.2-complainant was married to accused No.1 on 14.07.2019 and the said marriage was the second marriage for both of them. Accused No.1 had two children from his first marriage while respondent No.2-complainant had one daughter from her first marriage. Since there was a difference of opinion between the husband and wife, they started residing separately. On 23.10.2020, the respondent-wife had filed a complaint before the Banasavadi Police Station and based on the said complaint, NCR was registered and after holding an enquiry, the same was closed. Subsequently, on 19.11.2020, once again 4 Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
respondent No.2 has given a complaint to the Banasavadi Police Station which has resulted in registering of FIR in Crime No.501/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. The petitioners who are the brother, sister and sister-in-law of accused No.1 were arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 4 in the said FIR. Being aggrieved by the same, they are before this Court with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the said case which is now pending before the Court of 11th Additional CMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even if the allegations made in both the complaints which were lodged by respondent No.2- complainant are presumed to be true, no case for the alleged offences can be made out against the petitioners. He submits that principal grievance of the complainant is as against 5 Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
her husband. He also submits that petitioner No.1 is working in the office of Lokayuktha at Bellari while petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Belgavi. He submits that there are no specific allegations against these petitioners which would attract the offences invoked in the FIR. He submits that the grievance made against the petitioners are that inspite of complainant bringing to their notice about the ill-treatment and torture treated / meted out on her by her husband, they have not supported her, on the other hand they supported her husband.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant would submit that the overall reading of the complaint averments would go to show that the petitioners were instigating accused No.1. He also submits that when the complainant had gone to Belgavi to the house of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and had informed them about the ill-treatment and torture 6 Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
meted out by her husband, they advised her to obey her husband and not to inform about the same to anybody. He submits that the petitioners were instigating accused No.1 to demand dowry from the complainant.
6. Learned HCGP opposes the petition and prays to dismiss the petition.
7. From the perusal of the complaint averments, it is seen that there is absolutely no material as against the petitioners herein to prosecute them for the offences alleged in the FIR. Even if the complaint averments are prima-facie presumed to be true, no case can be made out to prosecute the petitioners for the alleged offences. The petitioner No.1 is working at Bellari while petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are residing at Belgavi. The husband of the complainant is working as a Geologist in Bagalkot while complainant is residing at Bengaluru. In the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners which would attract the offences 7 Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
alleged in the FIR and having regard to the fact that petitioners are married and residing separately in far away places would go to show that an attempt is made by the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioners only for the reasons that they are near relatives of the husband.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PREETI GUPTA & ANOTHER VS STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANOTHER - (2010)7 SCC 667, has held in paragraphs 32 to 35 as under:
"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.8
Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by 9 Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be 10 Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
scrutinized with great care and
circumspection."
9. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TARBEZ KHAN ALIAS GUDDU & OTHERS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER - (2019)4 SCC 615 and in the case of SEENIVASAN VS THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE - (2019)8 SCC 642, has observed that in the absence of specific allegations which would attract the offences, an attempt to implicate the near relatives of the husband cannot be permitted.
10. This Court in the case of ASMA KHANUM @ NOOR ASMA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER - 2020(6) KAR.L.J.90 has also held that when the material on record would go to show that the petitioners who are close relations of husband, are married and residing separately and when the complaint lacks specific allegations so as to implicate the petitioners for the offences alleged against them, 11 Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
such criminal prosecutions shall not be allowed to continue. The present case is a classic case in said nature, even though there are absolutely no allegations in the complaint which would attract the alleged offences against the petitioners and in spite of the fact that they all are married and residing separately in different districts, an attempt is made to falsely implicate them in a criminal case. The complaint smacks of inherent improbabilities and the reading of the complaint would also go to show that to wreak vengeance and with ulterior motive. The petitioners, who are the near relatives of the husband, are also sought to be implicated in the criminal case.
Continuation of such criminal prosecution would definitely amount to abuse of process of law and therefore, for the purpose of securing the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the entire proceedings Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: 12
Crl.P.No.1497/2021.
ORDER
1. Criminal Petition is allowed.
2. The entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners in FIR / Crime No.501/2020 pending on the file of the 11th Additional CMM Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are quashed.
The observations made in this order will not have any bearing on the other proceedings said to have been initiated by respondent No.2-complainant against her husband.
Sd/-
JUDGE HA/-