IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8843 OF 2018 BETWEEN 1. Afsath W/o Abdul Kasim, Aged about 50 years, 2. Abdul Kasim S/o Sulaiman, Aged about 63 years, Both are R/at:
Near Prasad Engineering College, Khashibettu, Belthangady Taluk, D.K. District – 577 213.
3. K. Ahmed S/o Ismail, Aged about 70 years, R/at: Near Bico Company, Kothalkatte, Kaup Post, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District – 574 214.
4. Asma D/o K. Ahmed, Aged about 38 years, R/at: Near Bico Company, Kothalkatte, Kaup Post, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District – 574 214.
5. Imthiyaz S/o K. Ahmed, Aged about 36 years, Udupi District – 574 214, R/at: Near Bico Company, Kothalkatte, Kaup Post, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District – 574 214.
(By Sri. Lethif .B, Advocate) AND 1. The State of Karnataka, Rep. by Woman Police Station, Udupi District, Rep. by SPP, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Nor Jahan W/o Mohammed Musthaq, Aged about 41 years, R/at: Flat No.202, Green Park, Brahmagiri, Udupi Taluk, Udupi District – 572 101.
(By Sri. R.D. Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1;
.... Petitioners ... Respondents Sri. S. Vishwajith Shetty, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.35/2018 (PCR No.988/2018) of Women Police Station, Udupi District on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) and JMFC Court at Udupi District, Udupi for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 342, 323, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State.
2. Respondent No.2 is a complainant before II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn) and JMFC Court at Udupi District, Udupi complaining about the commission of offence punishable under Sections 498 (A), 342, 323, 504 and 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against accused Nos.1 to 6. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 6.
3. The case of the complainant is that she was given in marriage to accused No.1 on 03.10.2002 at Quiller Juma Masjid, Belthangandy Taluk as per Muslim customs and traditions. During the marriage, her parents had gifted 17 sovereign of gold ornaments and Rs.2.00 Lakh cash as demanded by accused No.1. That after the marriage, the complainant and accused No.1 were blessed with two children. Accused No.2 is the sister of accused No.1, accused No.3 is the husband of accused No.2, accused No.4 is the father of accused Nos.5 and 6, accused No.5 is the second wife of accused No.1. That after marriage they are residing together at the matrimonial house and accused No.1 left India to Saudi Arabia, where he was employed as Sales Manager. Within three months of marriage, accused No.1 demanded for an additional dowry, failing which, he threatened the complainant and in this regard, he called the brother of the complainant in the year 2003 and threat was given to that effect. Accused No.1 returned to India in the year 2005 and on instigation of accused Nos.2 to 5, accused No.1 started ill-treating the complainant and on these allegations, a complaint came to be lodged.
4. Today, learned counsel for respondent No.2 on instructions submits that the complainant has no objections for allowing the petition preferred by accused Nos.2 to 6 and that she may be permitted to continue the prosecution insofar as accused No.1 is concerned.
5. Learned HCGP would submit that he has no objection to the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.2.
6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP are placed on record.
7. Having perused the pleadings and the materials on record, it is seen that there is no allegation against accused Nos.2 to 6 that they have inflicted or have indulged in any vicious attack. Keeping in mind that the offences alleged are under the provisions of Section 498A of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, no purpose would be served directing the petitioners to stand trial, since the complainant herself has decided to withdraw the allegations. It would merely be a waste of judicial time and abuse of the process of Court.
8. Accordingly, petition is allowed. The case registered against Crime No.35/2018 pursuant to PCR No.988/2018 of Women Police Station, Udupi District, Udupi pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.
Dvn) & JMFC Court at Udupi District, Udupi for the offence punishable under Sections 498 (A), 342, 323, 504 and 506 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed insofar as it relates to petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE MBM