Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rehana Banu vs State By on 17 November, 2021
Author: K. Natarajan
Bench: K. Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7962/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.REHANA BANU,
W/O LATE FAYAZULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
2. KUM.FATHIMA SHABRIN,
D/O LATE FAYAZULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
3. AZMATHULLA KHAN,
S/O LATE FAYAZULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
BADRIYA CIRCLE,
NEHARUNAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA EXTN.,
CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.N.R.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY SUB - INSPECTOR POLICE,
BASVANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
CHIKMAGALUR.
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SMT.UMME SALMA,
W/O REHAMATHULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE,
R/O ANJENEYA TEMPLE ROAD,
CHIKMAGALUR TOWN,
CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI H.S.SHANKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT.SHAHIDA KHANAM J., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 14.12.2018 IN C.C.NO.612/2017 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
CHIKKMAGALURU AND ALSO IN CRL.RP NO.5/2019 ON THE
FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU AT ANNEXURE - A AND
ORDER DATED 17.02.2020 IN CRL.RP.NO.05/2019 AT
ANNEXURE - B AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.612/2017 pending on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, 3 Chikkamagalur for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2, who is the wife of accused No.1 filed a complaint on 11.02.2017 before the police alleging that she was married to accused No.1-Rehmathulla Khan on 15.05.2015. At the time of marriage, the petitioners- accused Nos.2 to 4 have demanded gold ornaments and silver articles. Apart from the said ornaments, they have also demanded dinning table, dressing table and house hold articles and the same were given by the 4 parents of the complainant. Accordingly, the marriage was held in a grand manner. The complainant's parents spent a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the marriage expenses and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the engagement expenses. After the marriage, the complainant and accused No.1 lived together happily only for a month. Subsequently, accused No.1 intended to go to Qatar, Saudi Arabia. Therefore, he demanded a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the complainant's parents. Accordingly, they gave the said amount to accused No.1. In the year 2015, he went to Qatar. At the time of going to Qatar, he left his wife in her parents' house with an assurance to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Accordingly, he has credited a sum of Rs.5,000/- only for two months. Thereafter, he has given only a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. Thereafter, on 09.02.2017 at about 9-00 p.m., she went to her matrimonial home where accused Nos.1 to 4 are said to 5 have harassed her and abused her and demanded to bring a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as additional dowry. The accused persons are said to have tortured her both physically and mentally and threatened to commit her murder, if she did not bring the said money. Subsequently, she has lodged the complaint before the Police. After registering the case, the police have investigated the matter and filed charge sheet before the Magistrate. The petitioners filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C for discharging them which came to be dismissed by the Magistrate. Later the same was challenged before the Sessions Judge by filing revision petition under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. which also came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petitioners are before this Court.
4. Sri N.R. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners seriously contended that of course, there is no prima facie material against these petitioners. The 6 petitioner No.1-Accused No.2 is the mother-in-law, Petitioner No.2-Accused No.3 is sister-in-law and petitioner No.3-accused No.4 is the brother-in-law of the complainant and they are mother, sister and brother of accused No.1. Absolutely, there is no material against the petitioners. If at all there is any material that is only against accused No.1. Accused No.1, who returned from Qatar visited the house of the parents of the complainant and requested her to come back to the matrimonial home but she has refused to go back. Therefore, he got issued legal notice on 06.02.2017 to the complainant and the same was received by her on 09.02.2017. After receiving the said notice, as a counter blast, she has filed a false complaint on 11.02.2017 before the police only to harass the petitioners. Even otherwise, learned counsel contended that on 09.02.2017, respondent No.2 came along with the child and she has celebrated the child's birthday 7 along with accused No.1. Suppressing the same, she has filed a complaint only to harass the petitioners. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, Smt. Shahida Khanam, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 seriously objected the petition and contended mainly on the ground that the petitioners had already approached the Magistrate by filing application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. which came to be dismissed. Subsequently, they approached the Sessions Judge for revision and the same was also dismissed. The trial Court has already proceeded to frame the charges based upon the materials on record. Such being the case, when the trial Court has already framed the charges holding that there is material, this Court cannot quash the proceedings stating that there is no material on record. Therefore, the Court cannot interfere with the framing of charges. She further contended that the petitioners have not 8 challenged the framing of charges except quashing the charge sheet. Therefore, the petition is not sustainable under law. She also contended that the documents produced by the petitioners cannot be looked into for the purpose of quashing of the criminal proceedings but it is to be looked into during the trial as a defence for the purpose of final hearing. Therefore, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. It is also contended that the respondent No.2 has already filed a matrimonial case in O.S.No.207/2021 for restitution of conjugal rights. Even today, she is ready to go to the matrimonial house to lead the marital life, but accused No.1 is not ready to take her back. Such being the case, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. Learned counsel also contended that the date of birth of both the accused No.1 and the child is one 9 and the same. She went to her matrimonial house for celebrating the birthday of the child. At that time, she was shocked to know that accused No.1 already came to his parents house, but the same was not informed to her by these accused persons, and they altogether harassed the complainant. Such being the case, there is prima facie material against the petitioners. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader also supports the contention of respondent No.2 and prayed for dismissal of petition.
9. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, admittedly, accused No.1 is the husband of the complainant-respondent No.2. Their marriage was held on 15.05.2015. At the time of marriage, the gold armaments and silver articles were given by her parents and their marriage was held in a grand manner. 10 The photographs produced by the counsel reveals that all the gold armaments were given at the time of marriage. It is also not in dispute that accused No.1 who is the husband of respondent No.2 left to Qatar in the year 2015 and the parents of the complainant are said to have paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- to accused No.1. Disputing this fact, he is said to have paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month for two months and thereafter, a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. But it is not forthcoming from the averments of the petition when accused No.1 came back to India and he never went to the house of the complainant to bring her back. He is said to have returned to India on 26.01.2017. There is no material placed on record to show that he has requested his wife to come back and the petitioners also tried to bring the child of respondent No.2 to her matrimonial house. Even these petitioners have not disclosed the arrival of accused No.1 from Qatar. However, it is not in dispute 11 that accused No.1 has got issued notice to respondent No.2 on 06.02.2017 through an advocate. However, the same was received on 09.02.2017 by one of the family members of respondent No.2. The notice was said to have been issued by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is said to have visited the house of the accused where she found that accused No.1 was in the house and he had not intimated about his arrival to the complainant. However, the photographs produced by the learned counsel clearly go to show that there was birthday celebration of the child held in the house of the accused. But none of the photographs reveal respondent No.2 and these accused persons joined together and took any group photographs and it shows these petitioners had not participated in the birthday celebration of the child which is the first birthday of the child. Though the learned counsel submits that there is no material placed on record, but these petitioners along with the accused 12 No.1 resided in one house and they are said to have demanded for a further sum of Rs.1 lakh from her parents and harassed her physically and mentally.
10. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts including this Court that when there is no material against the person, the Court has power to quash the criminal proceedings against them when they are falsely implicated, but looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials placed on record, these petitioners residing together with accused No.1, inspite of completion of more than two weeks, they have not intimated the arrival of accused No.1 and they have not allowed her to join the matrimonial home. Nothing has been placed on record to show that they have made an attempt to bring her back except issuing legal notice. Even the legal notice reveals many allegations made against respondent No.2. Though the learned counsel 13 relied upon the judgment of various High Courts including this Court in respect of quashing the criminal proceedings, even other wise this Court in various cases quashed the criminal proceedings and also dismissed the petition when there is material placed on record to frame the charges. Learned counsel for the respondent also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when the charges have been framed by the trial Court after looking into the materials placed on record, the High Court cannot quash the same under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. holding that there is no such material. In a similar case in MANAKSHI BALA Vs. SUDHIR KUMAR reported in 1994 (5) LAWS(SC) 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph-4 of the judgment, which reads as under:
"If charges are framed in accordance with Section 240 Cr.P.C on a finding that a prima facie case has been made out as has been done in the instant case the 14 person arraigned may, if he feels aggrieved, invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or the Sessions Judge to contend that the charge-sheet submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C and documents sent with it did not disclose any ground to presume that he had committed any offence for which he is charged and the revisional court if so satisfied can quash the charges framed against him. To put it differently, once charges are framed under Section 240 Cr.P.C the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction would not be justified in relying upon documents other than those referred to in Sections 239 and 240 Cr.P.C; nor would it be justified in invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the same except in those rare cases where forensic exigencies and formidable compulsions justify such a course. We hasten to add even in such exceptional cases the High Court can look into only those documents which are unimpeachable and can be legally translated into relevant evidence."
11. In this case also, the petitioners already filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed and revision petition filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the proceedings when the trial Court has already framed the 15 charges holding that there is material placed on record against them and now this Court give an opinion to say that there is no material on record to quash the proceedings. Therefore, the petitioners have not made out a good ground to quash the criminal proceedings and there is material placed on record to show that the petitioners are involved in the alleged offences. There is no good ground and documents on the side of the petitioners to agitate before the Court as a defence. Therefore, the Court cannot appreciate the documents for quashing the criminal proceedings. Hence, the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KTY