Bangalore District Court
Mariyam vs Shek Fahed Ahamed And Other on 28 May, 2025
1
C.C.No.35069/2011
KABC030351052011
Presented on : 25-11-2011
Registered on : 25-11-2011
Decided on : 28-05-2025
Duration : 13 years, 6 months, 3 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY.
Dated this the 28th day of May, 2025.
Present: Sri SYED ARFATH IBRAHIM M., B.A.L, L.L.B.,
XXXVII ACJM., BANGALORE
C.C. No.35069/2011
JUDGMENT UNDER SEC.355 OF CR.P.C.,
Complainant : State by Basavanagudi Women
Police Station.
Vs/-
Accused : A1 SHAIK FAHED AHMED
R/AT NO. B3, MILLER APARTMENT
MILLERS ROAD
BENGALURU
A3 DR. SHAIK RAYAN AHMED
(SPLITUP)
A2 KHAMEER ALTAF ( QUASHED)
A4 SHIFA KAREEM (QUASHED).
Date of offence : 02-08-2007 to 07-04-2010.
Offences complained : U/s.498A, 506 of IPC. & Sec.3, 4& 6
2
C.C.No.35069/2011
of of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Plea : Accused No.1 Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Accused No.1 is Acquitted
Date of Order : 28-05-2025.
*****
The Police-Inspector of Women P.S.(South Zone)
Basavanagudi has filed chargesheet against Accused No.1 to 4 for
the offences punishable U/s.498A, 506 of IPC. & Sec.3, 4 & 6 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. The criminal law has been set into motion based on the
first information statement of Smt. Mariam.F. The gist of the
prosecution case is that the Accused No.1 married CW-1 on 02-08-
2007 as per customs at Chandrodaya Kalyana mantapa,
Bannerughatta, Bengaluru. At the time of marriage on the demand
made by the Accused persons Rs.1,00,000/- cash, watch worth
Rs.35,000/- and gold ornaments were given to the Accused No.1 as
dowry by the parent's of the complainant and performed the
marriage by incurring Rs.10 lakhs in a grand way. After the
marriage the Accused have subjected CW-1 to mental and
physical cruelty in respect of demanding her to get money in order
to improve the business at UK. Accused No.1 has also quarreled
3
C.C.No.35069/2011
with the complainant and did not take care of her or the baby ,
and when the father of the complainant had questioned the
Accused No.1 about the same, he had abused him in filthy
language. Accused no. 1 also used to state that the complainant is
of a worst character and a biggest fool on the earth. Accused No. 1
used to send filthy worded e-mails to the complainant and the
Accused No.3 had also given threat to the father of complainant
that he would be falsely implicated in a departmental enquiry. The
Accused No. 1 had taken all the jewelries of the complainant and
harassed the complainant over the custody of the child. Due to all
the above mental harassment the complainant thought of
committing suicide, and the the Accused had also given life threat
to the complainant. Based on the said information, a case in
Cr.No.68/2010 came to be registered against the Accused for the
aforesaid offences.
3. After completion of the investigation, the police filed B
report and the complaint filed protest petition and got examined 3
witnesses. Later this court relying on the materials on record took
cognizance of the alleged offences. Pursuant to the issuance and
service of summons, Accused entered appearance and were
4
C.C.No.35069/2011
enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were furnished to the
Accused as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.
4. Before framing charge an opportunity of being heard was
provided to the Accused No.1 and after hearing him and the
prosecution and as there was sufficient materials, the charge for
the aforesaid offences was framed and same was read over to the
Accused No.1 in the language known to him, to which, the
Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The plea of the
Accused was recorded. Thereafter, the matter was set down for
prosecution evidence.
5. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has
examined three witnesses as PW-1 to PW-3 and got marked Ex.P.1
to P.11 documents. On behalf of the defence, Ex.D.1 to D-23 came
to be marked during cross examination of witnesses. The
statement of Accused No.1 as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. is
recorded. In which, the Accused No.1 denied the incriminating
circumstances appeared against him. The Accused No.1 has not let
in any oral evidence on his behalf.
6. Heard arguments on both the sides. I have Perused the
materials on record.
5
C.C.No.35069/2011
7. The following points arise for my determination:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that the Accused demand and took dowry at the
time of the marriage, all the Accused persons subjected
complainant to physical and mental cruelty in respect of
demand of additional dowry, abused her and her father
in filthy language and threatened her of dire
consequences of life and thereby Accused committed the
offences punishable U/s.498A, 506 of IPC. & Sec.3, 4 &
6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.?
2) what order?
8. My finding to the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 ........In the Negative.
Point No.2........ As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT No.1 :- It is the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. In order to bring home the guilt of the
Accused, the prosecution has examined three witnesses as PW-1
to PW-3 got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P11 documents.
10. P.W.1 Mariam F has deposed in her examination-in-chief
that her marriage took place with Accused No.1 on 2-8-2007 at
Chandrodaya Convention Hall, Bannerghatta, Bangalore. During
6
C.C.No.35069/2011
the marriage her father had paid Rs.One lakh to the Accused No.1
and also gave a Wrist Watch worth Rs.35,000/- to the Accused
No.1 as per the demand of Accused. Prior to the marriage,
Accused No.1 had promised to take her with him to U.K. after
marriage. After the marriage, Accused No.1 and she resided in the
house of parents of Accused No.1 as Accused No.1 had stated that
cost of living in U.K is very high and he is not in a position to take
her to U.K. The Accused had told her that her parents have to pay
her expenses in U.K. On 25-01-2008 she and Accused No.1 went
to U.K. and after 15 days the Accused No.1 came back to India
leaving her with his sister. He had stated that if she wants
separate accommodation at U.K., her father has to pay for the
same. She has deposed that Accused No.4 used to taunt her that
she has not brought sufficient dowry. She was not allowed to talk
to her parents and Accused No.4 used to make demand for money
from her father. After a month, the parents of Accused No.1 came
to U.K and asked her to undergo sex determination test of the
fetus. Later she came back to India at the end of March, 2008 and
gave birth to a male child on 02-06-2008. Accused No.1 came to
hospital for half-an-hour and went away without taking care of her
and the baby. Later Accused No.1 went to U.K and stayed there for
7
C.C.No.35069/2011
1 ½ year. During this period her father spoke to the father of
Accused No.1 regarding carelessness of Accused No.1 to which her
father in law had demanded her father to pay the expenses
incurred by them at U.K. Later her father had emailed Accused
No.1 to take care of her but Accused replied in filthy language.
The Accused No.1 had stated that she is worst of character and
biggest fool on the earth and used other bad words towards her.
Later Accused No.3 sent a email to her father threatening to
initiate departmental enquiry against her father. In the month of
December, 2009 when Accused No.1 came back to India, the elders
of his family tried to solve the problem and sent Accused No.1,
child and herself to Mysore for reconciliation. During this period
Accused No.1 asked her to pay the Hotel expenses and also took all
her jewelry by threatening her. Now the Accused is harassing her in
respect of having custody of the child with him . During the cross
examination she admits that watch and clothes were given to
Accused No.1 as gift at the time of marriage. She admits that she
and Accused No.1 had gone to Malaysia and all the expenses of the
Trip were borne by Accused No.1. He also admits that flight
tickets for U.K. were taken by Accused No.1. She states that
when they were staying in U.K. Accused No.3 started taunting her.
8
C.C.No.35069/2011
She admits that she had never exchanged any emails with Accused
No.1 regarding the alleged harassment given to her at U.K. She
states that she cannot remember whether she had mentioned
about dowry demand by other Accused in her emails to Accused
No.1. She admits that she had sent "Khula Nama" to the Accused
but Accused refused to sign the same. She admits that later she
filed O.S.No.211/20211 seeking Declaration of Khula nama. She
admits that she had come to India for delivery of the child. She
further states that she cannot verify who had sent Ex.P.9 email to
her. She states that the brother of Accused No.1 had an account
on Orkut Website. She admits that after her father sent email to
Accused No.1, then the brother of Accused No.1 sent threatening
emails to her father. She admits that she has never stated in any
earlier proceedings that Accused No.1 had taken her jewelry .
11. Father of PW-1 by name Mohammed Fasiuddin was
examined as PW-2. He in his chief examination has stated that the
father of Accused No.1 had told him they do not expect anything
from them. He has stated that the mother of Accused No.1 had
informed his wife that marriage has to be held in grand manner.
Hence, he had spent Rs.Ten lakhs towards marriage and also gave
9
C.C.No.35069/2011
a wrist watch worth Rs.35,000/- to Accused No.1. He has further
deposed that after a week of marriage when they went for lunch to
the house of the Accused, the father of Accused No.1 told him that
their business in Bangalore is in bad shape and one of the
business partner had cheated Accused No.1 of Rs.Three Crores.
Again he deposed that during the stay of PW-1 at U.K she was not
comfortable and she had told him that she was ill treated by the
Accused No.4 during her stay. He has deposed that PW-1 told him
that Accused No.1 needs Rs.1,60,00,000/- for business purposes.
He had deposed that when Accused, PW-1 and their child went to
Mysore, Accused No.1 behaved very badly with PW-1 and made her
pay Rs.10,000/- towards hotel expenses. He has deposed that
Accused No.3 wrote a letter to her daughter and she thought of
committing suicide after reading the letter. During his cross
examination he admits that as per the customs they had given
gold and clothes to the Accused and Accused had also given gold
and clothes to her daughter. He states that as per the customs he
had given a watch to Accused No.1. He has stated that he had
informed to his department that he had not given any dowry
during the marriage. He admits that in his emails he had not
10
C.C.No.35069/2011
mentioned about any demand of dowry by Accused. He also admits
that Accused No.1 never demanded any amount.
12. The paternal uncle of PW-1 by name Tajuddin Abu was
examined as PW-3 and he has deposed two days prior to the
marriage, Accused No.1 and his mother came to the house of PW-
2 and told that they need money for marriage preparation.
Accordingly he and his father decided to pay the money and paid
Rs.One lakh to Accused No.1 one day prior to marriage. He has
also deposed that when they went to the house of Accused for
lunch the father of Accused No.1 and Accused No.1 told that
their business in Bengaluru is in bad shape and one of his partner
had cheated him of Rs.Three crores. During his cross examination,
he admits that gold and clothes were given to Accused as per
customs and Accused No.1 did not demand for any watch. He
also admits that Accused did not demand any amount when they
went to house of Accused.
13. The above being the evidence on record it would be
appropriate to see whether the complainant has proved the cane
beyond reasonable doubt. Before going into the evidence brought
11
C.C.No.35069/2011
on record by both the parties, it has to be stated that in this case
Accused No.1 is only tried before this court and the case against
Accused No.2 and 4 was quashed. Further the case against
Accused No.3 has been splitup. Hence, this court will only give its
finding on the alleged allegations made against Accused No.1 only.
14. It is the case of the complainant that at the time of the
marriage, on the demand made by the Accused No.1 to 4, her
parents had given Rs.One lakh in cash, Wrist watch worth
Rs.35,000/- and clothes to Accused No.1 as dowry. It is further
case of the complainant that after the marriage she was subjected
to mental and physical cruelty by the Accused when she was
residing with the Accused both at Chennai and also at U.K. It is
further alleged by the complainant that the Accused No.1 and his
father demanded Rs.1.5 Crores or Two lakh pounds in order to
revive their business at U.K. It is also alleged by the complainant
that the Accused No.1 had used filthy language against her. It is
also alleged by the complainant that Accused No.1 had abused
PW-2 in filthy language when he tried to reconcile Accused No.1
and complainant. It is also alleged by complainant that when she,
Accused No.1 and their child had gone to Mysore for reconciliation,
12
C.C.No.35069/2011
the Accused No.1 made her to pay all the expenses and also took
away all her jewelry by threatening her. The above allegations are
the sum and substance of the entire case against the Accused No.1.
Now let me examine each of the allegations to see whether the
complainant has proved her case beyond reasonable doubt.
15. It is alleged by the complainant that at the time of the
marriage on the demand made by Accused No.1 and his family
members he was given wrist watch of Rs.35,000/- and clothes.
However during the cross examination PW-1, 2 and 3 have stated
that watch and clothes were given to the Accused No.1 as Gift are
customary gifts. When anything is given as customary gifts during
the marriage, such gifts cannot be considered as giving dowry
under Dowry Prohibition Act. Hence, this contention of the
complainant cannot be considered.
16. It is alleged by the complainant that they had paid
Accused No.1 Rs.One lakh in cash as dowry. In this regard, PW-1
states that the said amount was given by her grand father to the
Accused No.1. Further PW-3 states that when Accused No.1 and
his mother had come to their house and told that due to shortage
13
C.C.No.35069/2011
of money marriage preparations are not going on as expected.
However, PW-2 has stated in his cross examination that he had
given a separate reply to his department that there was no dowry
given during the time of marriage. Further, this allegations is no
where to be found in any of the email conversations made by
complainant and Accused NO.1 or PW-2 and Accused No.1 and
also PW-2 and Accused No.3. When PW-2 himself in chief
examination has stated that the father of Accused NO.1 had
categorically stated that they are not expecting anything from them,
then this allegation appears to be very doubtful. It is also
interesting to note that no where in the chief examination of PW-2
does he deposes that Rs.One lakh was paid to Accused No.1 before
the marriage or at the time of the marriage. Such being the case,
there are several doubtful aspects in this regard which create doubt
in the mind of this court regarding payment of Rs.One lakh to the
Accused No.1 before the marriage. This doubt further solidifies for
the reason that PW 1 to 3 state that Accused No.1 and his family
had given gold jewelry, clothes and mehar (dower) to complainant
at the time of the marriage. Hence, for all these reasons this court
holds that the complainant has failed to prove that they had paid
14
C.C.No.35069/2011
Rs. One lakh as dowry before the marriage or at the time of the
marriage to the Accused No.1 or his family members.
17. Another allegation of complainant is that Accused No.1
and his father had demanded Rs.1.5 Crores or 2 lakh pounds from
the parents of the complainant in order to revive their business in
the U.K. In this regard, it is interesting to note that such
allegations are not found in the chief examination of PW-1. Even in
the chief examination of PW-2 and 3, it can only be seen that soon
after the marriage, the Accused had invited them for lunch at their
house and had told them that their business at U.K. and
Bengaluru is in bad shape as one of the partner of Accused No.1
had cheated him of Rs.3 Crores. Though PW-2 never states
Accused No.1 or his father had made any demand for payment
of any amount but PW-3 alone states that Accused No.1 told him
he needs 2 lakh pounds to revive his business in U.K. Even if the
entire evidence of PW-2 and 3 is taken as it is this court does not
find any demand of money being made by Accused No.1 or his
father. From the chief examination of PW-3 it is clear that only
when PW-3 asked Accused No.1 what would be the money required
to revive his business at that time Accused No.1 had stated that he
15
C.C.No.35069/2011
would require 2 lakhs pounds to revive his business. This show
that Accused No.1 had only replied to a query putforth by PW-3
out of instinct. Such answer to a query by the Accused No.1 cannot
be considered as demanding dowry. Further PW-2 has also never
stated in any of his emails regarding Accused No.1 or his family
members demanding any amount to revive the business of Accused
No.1. Both PW2 and PW3 also state that the Accused No.1 had
never demanded any amount. Hence, for the above discussion this
court holds that complainant has failed to prove any demand of
money by the Accused No.1 or his family members after the
marriage.
18. It is alleged by the complainant that she was subjected to
mental and physical cruelty during her stay at Chennai as well as
U.K. In the entire chief-examination of PW 1 and 2, the only
allegation which is made is the sister of Accused No.1 who is
Accused No.4 in this case had repeatedly taunted her when she
was residing at U.K. The proceedings against Accused No.4 are
already quashed and there is no need for this court to dwell upon
this aspect as proceedings against A-4 are already quashed.
Further there are no specific allegation against Accused No.1
16
C.C.No.35069/2011
attributing towards subjecting complainant to physical and mental
cruelty. The only allegations against A-1 are that, he had not taken
complainant to U.K. soonafter marriage, left PW-1 in U.K. and came
back to India, dcame to see the child after the birth but left to U.K.
on the pretext of work and did not take care of PW-1 and his
child. All these allegations are bald and vague in nature. During
the cross examination PW-1 admits that soon after the marriage
she and Accused No.1 went to Malaysia and the entire expenses
were borne by Accused No.1. Later after coming from Malaysia., he
had taken PW-1 along with him to U.K. It is also admitted during
cross examination that sooafter the birth of the child Accused was
present and hair removing ceremony of the child was conducted in
the house of the Accused No.1 in his presence. Further in none of
the email conversations any of these allegations are made. Though
in Ex.D.21, PW-2 asks Accused No.1 to take care of his wife and
child but only on a email conversation, this court cannot come to
a conclusion of negligence on the part of Accused No.1 to take care
of his wife and child. It is also worth mentioning that it was the
complainant who had sent Khula nama" to get divorce from
Accused No.1 but Accused No.1 refused to sign Khula nama and
challenging the same it was the complainant who had approached
17
C.C.No.35069/2011
for divorce before the family court. If at all the Accused No.1 had no
intentions of taking care of his wife and child he would never have
refused to sign the "Khula nama". This shows that Accused No.1
already willing to accept his wife and child to his company. Hence,
for all the above discussion, this court hold that the complainant
has failed to prove that she was subjected to mental land physical
cruelty by Accused NO.1 or his family members.
19. It is alleged by the complainant that in the email the
Accused had used the words that she is having worst of character
and that she is biggest fool on the earth. To prove this aspect she
relies only upon emails which are marked as Ex.P.2 to P.11. It is
now a settled position of law that every electronic evidence
produced before the court as a document has to be supported by a
certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act. Failing to comply the
mandatory provision makes the electronic evidence unreliable. In
this case also there is no certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act
produced by Accused No.1 to 3 to substantiate the authenticity of
the emails. Such being the case these emails cannot be relied upon.
Other than the emails there is no other evidence to show that
Accused No.1 had abused complainant in filthy language. Further
18
C.C.No.35069/2011
PW-2 and also PW-3 have never stated regarding Accused No.1
abusing PW-1 as claimed by her. Hence, for the above discussion,
this court holds that the complainant had failed to prove that she
was abused in filthy language by the Accused No.1.
20. It is alleged by the complainant that when she, Accused
No.1 and their child went to Mysore, there the Accused made her to
pay Hotel expenses and also took away her jewels. However PW-2
only states that Accused NO.1 only ask to pay the hotel expenses
but never deposes regarding taking away the jewelry of PW-1.
Further PW-3 never deposes regarding this incident at all in his
chief examination. There is lot of inconsistency in the evidence of
PW1 to 3 regarding this incident. Hence, this court hold that
complainant has failed to prove any such incident happening as
alleged by her.
21. From all the above discussion, it is clear that the
complainant has failed to prove her case in toto beyond reasonable
doubt. It is worth mentioning that all these cases came to be filed
only after Accused No.1 refused to sign the "Khula nama" and
sought the custody of the Accused. Such being the case, the
19
C.C.No.35069/2011
chances of the complainant and his family members falsely
implicating the Accused and his family members in this case to
agree for giving Khula to complainant and take back his claim for
the custody of the child cannot be ruled out. Hence for all the
above discussion, this court hold that complainant has utterly
failed to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 beyond reasonable
doubt.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Negative.
22. POINT No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
In exercise of power conferred Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 498A, 506 of IPC. & Sec.3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The bail bonds of Accused No.1 shall be in force for a period of 6 months.
Since case against Accused No.3 is splitup, Office is hereby directed to preserve the records and property if any, for future reference.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer and print out 20 C.C.No.35069/2011 taken by her is verified, corrected & then pronounced by me in the Open Court dated this the 28-05-2025).
(SYED ARFATH IBRAHIM M.) XXXVII ACJM., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
PW-1 : Mariam F. PW-2 : Mohammed Fasiuddin PW-3 : Tajuddin Abu
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : First Information statement Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW-1 Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.11 : 10 emails sent by A-1 and A3 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:-
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE:-
NIL 21 C.C.No.35069/2011 LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE :-
Ex.D1 : Deposition in Crl.Misc No.86/2010 Ex.D2 to 5 : 4 photographs of engagement function Ex.D6 to Ex.D11 : 6 Photographs Ex.D12 to Ex.D14 : 3 photographs of Hair removing function Ex.D15&16: Two photographs Ex.D17to20: Ist year birthday photographs of their son ExD21 : Certified copy of email Ex.D22 : Deposition in G and W.C.No.61/2010 Ex.D23 : Deposition in O.S.No.211/2011.
XXXVII ACJM., BENGALURU. 22 C.C.No.35069/2011 23 C.C.No.35069/2011 28-05-2025 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separately ORDER In exercise of power conferred Under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences punishable U/s. 498A, 506 of IPC. & Sec.3, 4 & 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
The bail bonds of Accused No.1 shall be in force for a period of 6 months.
Since case against Accused No.3 is splitup, Office is hereby directed to preserve the records and property if any, for future reference.
XXXVII ACJM., BANGALORE.
24 C.C.No.35069/2011 25 C.C.No.35069/2011