Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Gouse S/O Shabuddin Deshnoor vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 January, 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COU RT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 27 T H DAY OF JANU ARY 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.G.M.PATIL
CRIMINAL PETITIO N NO.102008/2015
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMAD GOUSE
S/O SHABUDDIN DESHNOOR
AGE:67 Y EARS, OCC:PRIVA TE SERVICE,
R/O: CTS NO.4816/68A,
NEAR YUSUFIYA MASJID,
SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.
2. SHAINAZ W/O MO HAMMAD GOUSE
DESHNOOR
AGE:60 Y EARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: CTS NO.4816/68A,
NEAR YUSUFIYA MASJID,
SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.
3. SADIQ MOHAMMAD
S/O MOHAMMAD GOUSE DESHNOOR
AGE:28 Y EARS, OCC:PRIVA TE SERVICE,
R/O: CTS NO.4816/68A,
NEAR YUSUFIYA MASJID,
SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.
4. FAROOQ S/O GOUSEMODDIN MUJAWAR
AGE:48 Y EARS, OCC:PRIVA TE SERVICE,
R/O:ISLAMPUR GALLI, BAILHONGAL,
DIST:BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANJAY S KATAGERI, ADVOCATE.)
2
AND:
1. THE S TA TE OF KA RNATAKA
THROUGH SUB-URBAN
POLICE S TA TION, DHARWAD,
REP. BY ADDL SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. SMT.ARFHA W/O KHALID MOHAMMAD
DESHNOOR
AGE:28 Y EARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NO.10, CONTRACTOR COMPOUND,
KONDWAD ONI, CIVIL HOSPITAL ROAD,
DHARWAD-580001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI K.M .SHIRALLI FOR R2 - ABSENT.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS F ILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH TH E
CHARGE SHEET IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.106/2015 ON
THE BASIS OF CRIME NO.223/2014, FILED BY
RESPONDENT NO .1 AND THE SAME IS PENDING O N
THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND PRL. JMFC,
DHARWAD, AS INITIA TED BY RESPO NDENTS NO .1 & 2
HEREIN, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
HEREIN/ACCUSED NO.4 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498( A), 307 READ WITH
SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3, 4 & 6 DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, ETC.,.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings 3 initiated against the petitioners in Criminal Case No.106/2015, pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, Dharwad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint before the respondent-police on 10.09.2014, on the basis of which, the case was registered against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the aforesaid offences. Respondent No.2 has stated in the complaint that her marriage with accused No.1 took place on 30.06.2013 at IIFA Hotel, Belagavi. The marriage of the complainant and accused No.1 is the second marriage, as both of them were divorced. Her parents have spent marriage expenses. She has alleged that after two days of the marriage, she returned to her parents 4 house at Dharwad. At that time her husband insisted to demand two lakh rupees from her father. She has also stated that on that night when she was sleeping, her husband pressed on her neck with his hands so hard that she was not able to breath. When she tried to scream, he left her. Therefore he harassed her mentally and physically demanding cash of two lakh rupees. She has further stated that after her husband left for Dubai, her mother-in-law used to tease her saying that she has not brought sufficient gold as per their desire. Her husband called her to join him at Dubai after 15 days of his return and asked her to keep half of the gold with her father- in-law and half with her parents. She has further stated that when she was pregnant, her husband on coming to know that it is female foetus, pressurized her to abort and attempted to kill the baby by kicking on her stomach. She has stated that on 17.11.2013 her husband demanded money 5 from her father and when she refused, he quarrelled with her and threw her out of the house. She has also further stated that on 9.12.2013, when she was chatting with her husband online, through video, her in-laws and maternal uncle were forcing her to bring money from her father. She has stated that her maternal uncle residing in Dubia helped her to get back her passport. On the basis of the said complaint, the respondent police have registered the case against accused Nos.1 to 5.
3. The petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5 have stated that petitioners No.1 and 2 are parents of accused No.1, petitioner No.3 is brother of accused No.1 and petitioner No.4 is maternal uncle of accused No.1. They have stated that there is no demand of dowry or harassment by the petitioners as per the allegations of the complaint. The complainant 6 resided with the petitioners at Belagavi after marriage with accused No.1 for few days before she went to Dubai. The allegations are made only to bring the case within section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Now the charge sheet is filed without any basis. The complainant resided with the petitioners No.1 and 2 after the marriage for few days in the month of July 2013, then she joined accused No.1 at Dubai. Therefore, initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners is not sustainable in the eyes of law and it is abuse of process of law and as such liable to be quashed. The alleged offence under section 307 of IPC is not against the petitioners and the provisions of section 149 of IPC cannot be invoked in the case. Respondent No.2 is abusing the process of law with malicious ulterior motive against the petitioners.
7
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not present before the Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds stated in the petition submitted that the complainant stayed with the petitioners No.1 and 2 only for few days after the marriage before she left for Dubai and the allegations made in the complaint are only general in nature. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are old aged persons and suffering from BP and sugar. It is further submitted, absolutely there is no prima facie case against the petitioners to initiate and continue the proceedings against the petitioners for the alleged offences. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and 8 another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2012) 10 SCC 741.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that there are allegations against the petitioners that they instigated accused No.1 to demand dowry and harass the complainant. The learned High Court Government Pleader has relied on the judgment in the case of Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and another vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, Criminal Appeal No.1082/2019, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 31.7.2019, in support of his arguments.
7. As per the allegations in the complaint, the marriage of the complainant with accused No.1 was performed on 30.6.2013 in a hotel at Belagavi. She has stated that, at the time of marriage, her father gave seven lakh rupees to accused No.1 for purchase of car, visa and air 9 ticket, etc.,. The allegations demanding two lakh rupees to furnish the house at Dubai is also against accused No.1. The alleged incident after two days of the marriage, wherein accused No.1 pressed on the neck of the complainant and she was not able to breath is also against accused No.1 and the alleged incident took place inside the bed room.
8. She has only stated that after her husband left for Dubai, her mother-in-law used to tease her and made her miserable. Thereafter on 9.12.2013, when she was chatting with her husband online through video, her in-laws, namely, the petitioners herein were forcing her to ask money from her father and were quarrelling with her. This is all the allegations made against the petitioners. Therefore on reading of the entire complaint, it is made out that the allegations attract the provisions of section 498-A, 307 of IPC 10 and section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused No.1.
9. It is not disputed that the petitioners are permanent residents of Belagavi and the parents of the complainant are residents of Dharwad. Absolutely there is no specific allegation of physical harassment or directly demanding dowry from the complainant, by the petitioners. The allegation against the petitioners on 9.12.2013 is also when the complainant was chatting with her husband online through video, she has stated that, the petitioners were asking her husband to demand dowry from her father. Therefore the allegations in the complaint appears to be general in nature and there are no specific allegations against the petitioners.
10. Under these circumstances, the judgment in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another stated supra has to be considered. The 11 Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.18 of the judgment has held as follows:
Their Lordships of the Supreme Cour t in Ramesh case had been pleased to hold that the bald allegations made against the sister-in-law by the complainan t appeared to suggest the anxiety of the inf orman t to rope in as many of the husband's relatives as possible. It was held that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet f urnished the legal basis f or the Magistr ate to take cognizance of the off ences alleged against the appellan ts. The learned Judges were pleased to hold that looking to the allegations in the FIR and the conten ts of the charge sheet, none of the alleged off ences under Sections 498-A, 406 and Sectio n 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act were made against the married sister of the complainan t's husband who was und ispu tedly no t living with the f amily of the complainan t's husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Cour t were pleased to hold that the High Cour t ought not to have relegated the sister-in-law to the ordeal of trial. Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellan ts were quashed and the appeal was allowed.
11. Again in paragraph No.21 the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the case in G.V.Rao vs. 12 L.H.V. Pr asad, (2000) 3 SCC 693, wherein the proceedings initiated against the other members of the family were quashed holding that all the family members had been roped into matrimonial litigation. The Apex Court in paragraph No.28 has held as follows:
We, theref ore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellan ts Geeta Mehrotr a and Ramji Mehrotr a as the FIR does not disclose any mater ial which could be held to be constitu ting any offence against these two appellan ts. Merely by making a gener al allegation that they were also involved in physical and men tal tor ture of the respondent No.2 complainant without men tioning even a single incident against them as also the f act as to how they could be mo tivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainan t's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings insof ar as these appellan ts are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Cour t shall stand overruled. The appeal is accord ingly allowed.13
12. Therefore, merely by making a general allegation that the other family members were also involved in physical and mental torture of the complainant without mentioning a single incident against them, instigating her husband to demand dowry and harassing her, it is held that initiation of the proceedings against the other family members amounts to misuse of process of law.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chilakamarthi Venkateswarlu and another stated supra, has observed in paragraph No.15 as follows:
15. In exercising jur isd iction under Section 482 it is not permissible for the Cour t to act as if it were a tr ial Cour t.
The Cour t is only to be pr ima f acie satisf ied about existence of suff icient ground f or proceed ing against the accused. For that limited purpose, the Cour t can evaluate mater ials and documents on record, but it cannot appreciate the evidence to conclude whether the mater ials produced are suff icien t or not f or convicting the accused.
14
14. Therefore this Court has to consider as to whether a prima facie case exist against the petitioners and whether there are sufficient grounds for proceeding against them for the alleged offences. This Court cannot appreciate the evidence to conclude that the material on record is not sufficient to convict the accused persons.
15. The entire material on record altogether does not make out a prima facie case against the petitioners for the alleged offences and the allegations in the complaint are general in nature and no specific instances of physical or mental harassment given by the petitioners are made out in the complaint. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners amounts to misuse of process of law and as such the proceedings initiated against the petitioners are 15 liable to be quashed. Accordingly this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.
The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.106/2015 (Crime No.223/2014 of Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad), pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and Prl. JMFC, Dharwad, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGK/Mrk/-