IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9420/2016 BETWEEN:
1. MRS.AYESHABI W/O. MOHAMMAD KHAJA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS 2. MR.JAMEEL S/O.MD.KHAJA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. MR. JAVED S/O.MD.KHAJA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 4. MRS.NAHEEDA BEGUM W/O.MR.JAVED AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 5. MRS.ZAKEERA W/O.MR.JAMEEL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS P-1 TO P-5 ARE R/AT NO.17-1-375/A/28 KALANDAR NAGAR NEW SANTOSH NAGAR HYDERABAD-500 059 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE 6. MISS.NISHATH D/O.LATE RAFIQ MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 7. MRS.THANVEEZ W/O. LATE RAFIQ AHMED AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS P-6 & P-7 ARE R/AT NO.89, 2ND FLOOR 2ND MAIN ROAD, DINNUR R.T.NAGAR BANGALORE-560 032 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI H.B.UDAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE-560 001 2. MRS. NAZIA WAJID W/O. MOHAMMAD WAJID MAJOR, NO.37 BAITUL LUQMAN 1ST FLOOR, 7TH ‘A’ CROSS NEAR SULTAN MASJID KANAKNAGAR BANGALORE-560 032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1;
SRI SYED IRSHAD AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC.NO.15877/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 506, 504, 114 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Charge sheet is laid against the petitioners and the other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The petitioners herein are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 8 respectively. Accused No.1 is the husband of respondent No.2. Their marriage was performed on 16.02.2003. On 01.10.2015, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging harassment by her husband. The said complaint did not contain any allegation whatsoever insofar as accused Nos.2 to 6 and 8. The sum and substance of accusation contained in the said FIR is that accused No.1 had developed illicit relationship with accused No.7 and at her instance, he had been ill-treating and harassing her and also abusing and assaulting her. One month after lodging of the complaint, in her further statement recorded on 01.11.2015, for the first time, the second respondent came up with the allegation that accused Nos.2 to 6 and 8 were also complicit in the said offences. Based on her further statement, the petitioners have been charge sheeted for the above offences.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation made against the present petitioners is after thought and is intended to pressurize accused No.1–the husband of respondent No.2 to agree to her unlawful demands. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the allegation made in the charge sheet even if accepted on their face value as true, do not constitute the alleged offences insofar as the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 and 8 are concerned and hence, the prosecution of the petitioners is mala fide and vexatious and is liable to be quashed at the hands of this Court.
4. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent.
Learned SPP-II appearing for respondent No.1 has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the materials on record prima facie make out the offences alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to seek their discharge before the trial Court.
5. On considering the above contentions and on going through the charge sheet, it is noticed that at the earliest instance, there were no allegation whatsoever against accused Nos.2 to 6 and 8 attracting the offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506, 114 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the said complaint, all the allegations were directed against only accused Nos.1 and 7. It is only one month after the lodging the complaint, in her further statement, the second respondent for the first time came up with the allegation that when she had gone to the house of accused Nos.1 to 5, she was not allowed to cook and accused Nos.1 to 5 snatched the stove from her and abused her with vulgar words.
6. There is nothing on record to show as to when the said occurrence has taken place. Even otherwise, this allegation does not amount to “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC. It is not the case of the second respondent that accused Nos.1 to 5 assaulted her and abused her. Rather, her case is that when she had gone to the house of accused Nos.1 to 5, she was not allowed to cook in their house without their permission. Naturally, she being a guest in the house of accused Nos.1 to 5 cannot expect accused Nos.1 to 5 allow her to cook in their kitchen. There is nothing unnatural in the conduct of the petitioners. Rather this allegation supports the contentions of the petitioners that the second respondent was in good terms with the petitioners.
7. Having gone through the entire charge sheet, I do not find the allegation made against accused Nos.2 to 6 and 8 are sufficient to make out the ingredients of the offences alleged against them. Therefore, in my view, the prosecution of accused Nos.2 to 6 and 8 is only illegal, vexatious and utter abuse of the process of Court and therefore, cannot be allowed to continue. However, insofar as accused No.1-Mohammad Wajid and accused No.7-Nishath (petitioner No.6 herein) are concerned, there is sufficient material to proceed against them for the above said offences. Hence, the following order:
1. The petition is allowed in part.
2. The charge sheet laid against petitioner No.1/ accused No.2-Ayeshabi, petitioner No.2/ accused No.3-Jameel, petitioner No.3/accused No.4-Javed, petitioner No.4/accused No.5- Naheeda Begum, petitioner No.5/accued No.6- Zakeera and accused No.8-Thanveez, is hereby quashed.
3. The proceedings shall continue only against accused No.1-Mohammad Wajid and accused No.7-Nishath (petitioner No.6 herein).
Sd/- JUDGE LB