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.9772 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SMT BADRUNISSA W/O LATE ABDUL BASHEER AGED ABOUT YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2592/2, M.K.D.K. ROAD, 2ND CROSS, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 011.
2. WASEEM S/O LATE ABDUL BASHEER, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO. 53, 1ST CROSS, NO.2592/2 M.K.D.K. ROAD, 2ND CROSS, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSURU - 570 011. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI R.K.MAHADEVA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION, NARASIMHARAJA SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU - 570 011 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. NASRIN BANU W/O A.ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO. 147, 7TH CROSS, A.J.BLOCK, N.R.MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU - 570 011. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1; R2-IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2724/2015 (IS ARISING OUT OF IN CR.NO.281/2014 OF NARASIMHARAJA P.S., NARASIMHARAJA SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 306 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE III ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Charge-sheet is filed against the petitioners and accused No.1 under Section 498(A), 306 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Mousina Banu had married accused No.1 about 11 years earlier to the incident. In the wedlock, she had begotten four children. She was residing along with accused No.1 in a rented house. Gradually, accused No.1 also deserted her and she was residing all alone with her children. It is alleged that the accused were ill-treating and harassing her and were not providing her with food and clothing and on 21.08.2014, the deceased herself rang up to accused Nos.1 and 2 and asked him to come home immediately as she was suffering from severe headache and accused No.1 told her to do anything and thereby provoked her to commit suicide, as a result, on 22.08.204, at about 9.00 a.m., the deceased poured kerosene oil on herself and committed suicide.
3. A reading of the charge-sheet as well as the statement of the father of the deceased clearly indicates that about two years after the marriage, the deceased and accused No.1 were residing separately. The further averments in the charge-sheet indicate that at the time of the incident, the deceased was residing alone with her children. Therefore, one thing is clear that the present petitioners, namely, the mother- in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased did not reside with the deceased at any point of time after hear marriage. Under the said circumstances, the allegation made in the charge-sheet that all the accused persons ill-treated and harassed the deceased and did not provide her with food and clothing appears to be false and unbelievable. There was no obligation whatsoever on the petitioners herein to provide food and clothes to the deceased. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioners herein failed to provide food and clothing to the deceased, the same does not amount to an offence under Section 498A of I.P.C. in so far as the petitioners are concerned. Therefore, the charge under Section 498A of I.P.C. cannot stand against the petitioners.
4. In so far as the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. is concerned, the case of the prosecution is that immediate provocation of the deceased to commit suicide was given by accused No.1 himself. There are clear averments in the charge- sheet that on 21.08.2014, the deceased called accused No.1 and asked him to come to her house as she was suffering from severe head-ache. It is alleged that accused No.1 told her to do whatever she wanted and according to the prosecution this was the immediate provocation for her to commit suicide. Under the said circumstances, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. Therefore, considering all the above facts and circumstances, in my view, the prosecution of the petitioners for the offences under Section 498(A), 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of court and therefore, cannot be allowed to continue.
As a result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.2724 of 2015 (arising out of Crime No.281 of 2014) of Narasimharaja Police Station, Narasimharaja Sub-Division, Mysuru for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. are hereby quashed only in so far as the petitioners namely accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE dh