Karnataka High Court
Smt. Dilshad W/O Maibubsab Jamadar vs State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15761
CRL.P No. 101201 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101201 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. DILSHAD W/O. MAIBUBSAB JAMADAR,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. AMIR NAGAR, HARUGERI,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.
2. SMT ANJUM SHABBIR PENDARI,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. PENDARI GALLI, HATKADANGLE,
KOLHAPUR, MAHARASTRA-416118.
3. SMT. ARIFA JAVEED PENDARI,
AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. PATTAN KADOLI, KOLHAPUR,
MAHARASTRA-416202.
4. SMT. AFRIN FARIDAMEEN PENDARI,
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. H.NO.15/561, BANDAR MAL,
INCHALKARANJI MAHARASTRA-416115.
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B 5. SHRI BAPUSAB RUSTUMSAB JAMADAR,
SHELAR AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O. HARUGERI, TQ. RAIBAG,
KARNATAKA DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.
6. SHRI RAMJAN LALAKHAN JAMADAR,
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO.2627, AMIR NAGAR,
HARUGERI, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.
7. SHRI BABAR ALLASAB JAMADAR,
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. GANPATI GALLI, HARUGERI,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15761
CRL.P No. 101201 of 2024
8. SMT. NAJMA RAMJAN JAMADAR,
AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. AMIR NAGAR, HARUGERI,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.
9. SMT. BIBIJAN BABAR JAMADAR,
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. GANAPATI GALLI, HARUGERI,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.
10. SMT. SHAHIRA BAPUSAB JAMADAR,
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. AMIR NAGAR, HARUGERI,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.
11. SMT. GUJURATMA RUSTUM JAMADAR,
AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. AMIR NAGAR, HARUGERI,
TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.
12. SMT. TANJUM AHMAD PENDARI,
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. HUDAKO COLONY, ABHAY NAGAR,
SANGALI MAHARASTRA-416416.
13. SHRI AHMAD ALLABHAKSH PENDARI,
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. HUDAKO COLONY, ABHAY NAGAR,
SANGALI MAHARASTRA-416416.
14. SHRI ALLISAB SAJJANSAB PENDARI,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. NAGARMUNNULI, TQ. CHIKKODI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591222.
15. SHRI SIKANDARBASHA PENDARI,
AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. HARUGERI, TQ. RAIBAG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591220.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHADAB HASANSAB YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15761
CRL.P No. 101201 of 2024
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED THROUGH SATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
THROUGH TERADAL POLICE STATION, BAGALKOT,
HIGH COURT, DHARWAD.
2. SMT. MUSKAN W/O. AMEERAYAJ JAMADAR,
AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. C/O. RAJESAB BABU PENDARI,
DEVARAJ NAGAR, TQ. RABAKAVI BANAHTTI,
BAGALKOT-587315, MOB.6360415592.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHIVRAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH FIR
BEARING CRIME NO.21/2024 DATED 19.02.2024 REGISTERED BY
TERADAL PS BAGALKOT FOR OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 506,
498A, 504, 143, 147, 149, 406, 420, 323, 342 OF IPC AND SEC. 3
AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AS AGAINST THIS
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 16, ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, BANHATTI AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15761
CRL.P No. 101201 of 2024
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) Petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 16 have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash further the proceedings against them in Crime No.21/2024 of Teradal PS for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 506, 498A, 504, 143, 147, 149, 406, 420, 323, 342 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.
3. In support of the petition, accused Nos.2 to 16 have contended that the complaint does not disclose the offences for which the crime number is registered. The allegations made are vague and does not attract provisions of Section 498A of IPC. There are only omnibus and general allegations against accused Nos.2 to 16, who -5- NC: 2024:KHC-D:15761 CRL.P No. 101201 of 2024 are residents of different places. The real dispute is between the complainant and accused No.1. With malafide intention, other accused are included and prayed to quash the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 16.
4. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel appearing for the accused Nos.2 to 16 has relied upon the following decisions;
1. Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Ors. V. State of Bihar and Ors. (Kahkashan Kausar) 1
2. Preeti Gupta and Anr v. State of Jharkhand and Another r (Preeti Gupta)2
3. Velji Raghavji Patel v. The State of Maharashtra (Velji)3
5. Learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the marriage of the complainant with accused No.1 was performed on 14.07.2023. At the time of marriage, the accused persons have demanded and received dowry in the form of gold and cash in a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. After 1 AIR 2022 SC 820 2 AIR 2010 SC 3363 3 AIR 1965 SC 1433 -6- NC: 2024:KHC-D:15761 CRL.P No. 101201 of 2024 the marriage, complainant came to know that accused No.1 was already married and his first marriage is registered with the Registrar of marriages. This fact was concealed by all the accused persons.
5.1 In fact, after realizing that complainant has come to know about the first marriage of accused No.1, accused No.9 to 12 and other elders held a meeting and advised accused No.1 to forcibly have sexual intercourse with the complainant and make her pregnant so that after the birth of the child, she would not do anything drastic. With such advise, accused Nos.1 started forcibly having sexual intercourse with her and when she resisted, assaulted and abused her. Complainant was confined in a room and accused No.2 was keeping a vigil so that she should not meet anyone or call her parents. Sometimes accused No.1 and 2 made her to speak to her parents in their presence as per their directions. When accused No.1 was going to work, accused No.2 was guarding her.
5.2 When complainant's uncle Arshad Pendari came to meet her, she disclosed all these facts to him. He -7- NC: 2024:KHC-D:15761 CRL.P No. 101201 of 2024 inturn made her to speak to her parents. Thereafter, on 03.12.2023 a meeting was held. Accused No.1 admitted having married his relative Yasmin Pendari and that the remaining accused persons joined him in concealing the fact of the said marriage and performed the second marriage of accused No.1 with the complainant. When Yasmin Pendari was summoned to the meeting, she also expressed that accused No.1 has cheated her by marrying the complainant. She also disclosed that accused Nos.13 to 16 were present during the first marriage. After the said meeting, the complainant has chosen to file the complaint. There are specific allegations against all the persons and the prosecution should be given an opportunity to prove the said allegations and prayed to dismiss the petition.
6. Heard arguments and peruse the record.
7. It is not in dispute that accused Nos.2 to 16 are close relatives of accused No.1. It is also not in dispute that after the death of his father, Amir Ayaz Jamadar, who was a school teacher, accused No.1 was appointed on compassionate ground. As he is the government employee -8- NC: 2024:KHC-D:15761 CRL.P No. 101201 of 2024 having the security of service, he was a valuable commodity in the marriage Bazar. Consequently, his parents were expecting a handsome dowry. The parents of the complainant were reluctant to meet the demand. However, the grandfather of the complainant agreed to pay 2 tolas of gold and five lakh in cash, thinking that complainant would be happy with the said marriage.
8. The specific allegations against accused Nos.2 to 16 are that though engagement of accused No.1 and complainant took place on 12.02.2023, before their marriage which took place on 14.07.2023, accused No.2 married the daughter of his maternal uncle. This was within the knowledge of all the petitioners (accused Nos.2 to 12). However, to get the hefty dowry, they concealed the fact of first marriage of accused No.1 and allowed him to marry the complainant.
9. Further allegations against accused Nos.2 to 16 is that after realising that the truth has come out, they made all efforts to prevent complainant from divulging the said fact to her parents. They advised accused No.1 to -9- NC: 2024:KHC-D:15761 CRL.P No. 101201 of 2024 make sure that complainant became pregnant even though he is required to use force against her, so that after the birth of the child she should not oppose continuation of the relationship. Accused Nos.2 has confined the complainant in a room and prevented her from making any calls to her parents. When ultimately, the said fact came to the notice of her parents and a Panchayat was held, wherein accused Nos.2 to 16 admitted the fact of knowing the first marriage of accused No.1 and that they had concealed the said fact. Even the first wife of accused No.1 complained that accused Nos.13 to 16, though her close relatives did not inform her about the second marriage of accused No.1 and attended it.
10. Thus, there are specific allegations against all the accused. It is not a case where some omnibus allegations are made in order to implicate distant relatives of the husband. On the other hand, the complainant has specifically alleged that all the accused have acted in a concerted manner. These allegations are required to be proved at the trial. The concerned police are required to
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15761 CRL.P No. 101201 of 2024 investigate the matter. Ultimately, after the investigation, if the police find that there are no sufficient materials to proceed against any of the accused, they may be given up. Without providing the investigating officer to carry out the investigation and enquiring to the allegation and without providing the prosecution to prove the same at trial, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners cannot be quashed.
11. Having regard to the specific allegations against each of the accused, decisions relied upon by accused Nos.2 to 16 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the result, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly the following;
ORDER.
Petition filed by accused Nos.2 to 16 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE VMB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27