Karnataka High Court
Mohd Hafij @ Hafees Ansari vs State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2023
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
-1-
CRL.P No. 8476 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2 ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8476 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. MOHD HAFIJ @ HAFEES ANSARI
S/O JAHUR MIYA
AGED 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TOAL ZAFARPURA,
MUTAFABAD, SIWAN, MUSTAFABAD,
BIHAR - 841439.
2. HASBUN @ HASBUNISSA
W/O MOHD HAFIJ
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TOAL ZAFARPURA,
MUTAFABAD, SIWAN, MUSTAFABAD,
BIHAR - 841439.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BHAVANI BAI G 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High
Court of Karnataka BY JIGANI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU SUB - DIVISION,
BENGALURU CITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BLDG.,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. FATHIMA ASHROF,
W/O MOHD NOOR ALAM ANSARI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
-2-
CRL.P No. 8476 of 2018
H.R. AND ADMIN IN VEER-O- METALS,
JIGANI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU - 562 106.
C/O BABU, MADAPATNA VILLAGE,
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
MS. ANUPAMA M.V., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.1708/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL AS AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 494, 504 OF IPC AND
SECTIONS 3, 4 OF D.P ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1708/2017 charge-sheeted by the Jigani Police for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 494 and 504 of the India Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'D.P. Act'), pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru.
-3-CRL.P No. 8476 of 2018
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The case of the petitioners is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the police registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act and after the investigation, they filed the charge-sheet by adding Section 494 of IPC. Even though the police cannot investigate the matter, the trial Court issued the process without taking cognizance, which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended the trial Court while filing the charge-sheet has not applied his mind, not taken any cognizance and simply has issued the summons to the accused vide order dated 13.02.2018 and therefore, issuing summons or process to the accused are not sustainable under the law and further contended that accused No.1 is not residing with the petitioners. Hence, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that at the time of incident, these petitioners were also -4- CRL.P No. 8476 of 2018 present along with accused No.1 and they also participated in commission of offence. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petitioner. Learned High Court Government Pleader also objected the petition.
6. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, especially, the order sheet of the trial Court in C.C.No.1708/2017 reveals that the criminal case has been registered and an endorsement made by the office for put up and made out the case to the Court of the Additional Civil Judge for the disposal of the case in accordance with law and the CJM or the Principal J.M.F.C. have not assigned the matter to any other Court. The order sheet is still kept blank and no signature of the Prl. Judge is seen for assigning the matter for himself or to any other Court. Subsequently, the matter was taken up before the Court and ordered to issue summons to the accused returnable by 13.02.2018. On perusal of the same, it reveals, absolutely, there is no order by the Magistrate for having taken cognizance for the offence against the petitioners in order to issue summons. The format of the trial Court is kept blank and no where taken cognizance against the petitioners on the alleged offence in order to issue summons. -5- CRL.P No. 8476 of 2018 Therefore, very issuing process against the petitioners under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. is not sustainable under the law. Therefore liable to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
The order of issuing summons to the petitioners is hereby set aside. However, as regards to the merits of the case, there is no cognizance taken by the trial Court against the petitioners, therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot go into the merits of the case.
8. The trial court is directed to pass appropriate order for taking cognizance by application of mind.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB