Karnataka High Court
Dr.M.A.Qhadeer Ansari S/O Khaleel ... vs Dr.Humera Tahseen D/O Faridi Aali Asgar ... on 11 August, 2015
Author: A.V.Chandrashekara
Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200430/2015
BETWEEN:
1. Dr. M.A. Qhadeer Ansari
S/o Khaleel Ansari
Age: 36 years,
Occ: Medical Practitioner
2. Khaeel Ansari S/o Abdul Razak
Age: 65 years, Occ: Retd. JTO
3. Khadar Ansari S/o Khaleel Ansari
Age: 35 years, Occ: Engineer,
Working at Saudi Arabai
4. Iqbal Begum W/o Khaleel Ansari
Age: 62 years, Occ: Household
All R/o Behin KNZ Function Hall
Near Usmania Masjid,
Outer Ring Road,
Kalaburagi - 585 104.
... Petitioners
(By Sri: Sachin M. Mahajan, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. Dr. Humera Tahseen
D/o Faridi Ali Asgar
Age about: 29 years,
Occ: Medical Practitioner
R/o H.No.4-601/73E,
Mahatma Basaveshwara Nagar,
Shiv Mandir Chowk,
New Extenstion
Kalaburagi - 585 104.
2. The State of Karnataka
By Mahila Police Station,
Kalaburagi, by its SHO
Represented by the SPP
High Court of Karnataka
Bench at Kalaburagi.
... Respondents
(By Sri: Prakash Yeli, Addl.SPP for R2,
Sri Shivasharana Reddy, Advocate for R1)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow the petition, call for records
and quash the order dated 12.1.2015 passed by the II
Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC at Kalaburagi, in C.C
No.279/2015 wherein the Magistrate was pleased to
pass the order of taking cognizance for the alleged
offences punishable under section 498(A), 504, 323,
506 R/W 34 of IPC and consequently quash the entire
proceedings against the petitioners herein by allowing
the petition.
3
This petition coming on for Admission this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioners are accused in a case bearing Crime No.54/2011 on the file of the Mahila Police Station, Kalabuargi. The offences alleged against these petitioners are punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC. The police, on receipt of the first information lodged by the respondent No.1/Dr.Humera have registered a case. After concluding investigation they chose to file 'B' report on the ground that no such incident had taken place. Against the said submission of 'B' report, complainant filed a protest application and on the basis of the same, her sworn statement has been recorded. Process has been issued to these petitioners after taking cognizance 4 in terms of Section 204 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners are aggrieved on the ground that no case is made out for the offences alleged against them more particularly the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the objection filed by the second respondent herein before the Court of IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, at Gulbarga under Section 3(1)(d) and Section 3(2) of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. In paragraph No.7, she has stated that her husband had taken up the contention in the maintenance petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. that divorce had been given to her by means of Talaq on 15.08.2010 and the said aspect is stated to have been considered by the Family Court. Therefore, he has requested this Court to at least quash the proceedings 5 in so far as the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned.
4. The investigation is still in progress, nothing comes in the way of these petitioners furnish related materials before the Court, when the trial before charge will be held. This case being a case instituted otherwise than a police report, necessarily Court will hold a trial before charge before framing of charges and the petitioners can rely upon necessary materials and seek discharge. Not only Section 498-A of IPC has been invoked but also other Sections of IPC have been invoked in the present case. Hence, this is not a fit case to exercise the extraordinary power vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Accordingly, I pass the following; 6
ORDER Petition is dismissed.
Notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, the petitioners are at liberty to request the Court to discharge them, if they have sufficient materials to place on record at the time of conducting a trial before charge. Since the case has been registered otherwise than on a police report.
In such an event, the learned Judge to dispose of the matter at the earliest without undue delay.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr