IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5176 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
1. HILMI MOHAMMED S/O MOHAMMED NAYEEM AHMED AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.23/26 K V LAYOUT, III CROSS JAYANAGAR IV BLOCK BANGALORE-560011 2. MRS SHAHNAZ SAJIDA W/O MD NAYEEM AHMED AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.23/26 K V LAYOUT, III CROSS JAYANAGAR IV BLOCK BANGALORE-560011 (By Sri:PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADV.,) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THILAKNAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE 2. SAKINA NAZLI D/O ATAULLA AFSAR ... PETITIONERS AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/A NO.28, R NO. 14/118 CROSS 22ND MAIN, 5TH PHASE, J P NAGAR BANGALORE-560023 ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri :VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 S.A. WAJID, ADV., FOR R2 ABSENT ) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN CR.NO.32/2012 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT THILAKNAGAR POLICE STATION., BANGALORE CITY, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl.
SPP appearing for respondent No.1.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments.
3. Petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the mother-law of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 married petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 01.05.2005. According to her, after marriage, she accompanied petitioner No.1 to Dubai. Both stayed there for about four years. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 was transferred to Qatar. He took respondent No.2 on visiting Visa to Qatar and they stayed there for few months. After expiry of visiting Visa, she came back to India. After coming to India, she issued a notice to petitioner No.1 on 05.01.2010. In the said notice, she alleged that petitioner No.1 demanded heavy dowry from her parents; he caused damage to the kitchen gas pipeline intentionally and there was full fire in the kitchen and she was rescued by the neighbours, thus Petitioner No.1 attempted to kill her. It is further alleged, petitioner No.2 is the root cause for all the above instances. Further, it is alleged that petitioner No.1 drove her out of the house and caused all sorts of mental torture to her. In the said notice, she called upon petitioner No.1 to come back to India and settle the matter, failing which, she would lodge a police complaint against him and his mother.
4. A reading of the averments in the said legal notice makes it abundantly clear that all the instances of alleged cruelty or harassment had taken place at Dubai or Qatar, outside India. However, in the private complaint, which was lodged on 23.01.2012, more than two years after issuance of the legal notice, apparently to get over the legal hurdle in maintaining a complaint within the jurisdiction of Indian Courts, in para 12 of the complaint, it is stated as under:-
“Despite being subjected to mental cruelty, she was hoping against hope that during Bakrid occasion, he should be a changed man when he visits Bengaluru, which he did as he was in the City for about ten days. To her shock and dismay, he called the complainant on 09.11.2011 and threatened her that if he tries to go to his parents house in Bengaluru and /or make a trip to Sharja/Doha and attempts to meet him that would be her last day of physical existence and if at all, she wants to join him, she should bare with all his decisions with regard to his chosen women and carry Rs.8,00,000/- in cash towards the balance amount of Rs.38,80,000/- of which, he has already received Rs.30,00,000/- and he demanded that the balance amount should be handed over to him in Bengaluru or carry a Bank Draft in his name for that amount to be encashed in Dubai, as her father had promised him to pay that amount for marrying the complainant, which he did, only for that purpose and not for any love or attraction he had for her. The unlawful demand for the balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- was relatable to the marriage, which, the first accused and his mother were demanding and mentally torturing her as her father was not in a position to pay to the first accused husband.”
In para 15 also, it is stated that “The complainant submits that the first accused has now travelled to Bengaluru and staying with his parents in Jayanagar residence; and he called the complainant on 21.01.2012; and he blasted her in abusive language and demanded that he is still ready to take her back into his fold, provided she arranges for the remaining balance amount in a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- is paid during his presence in the city; and only upon that condition, he will take her back in the marriage by making certain modifications, which he sounded unclear; and he threatened if the complainant or her father or brother makes any attempt to reach him in his Bengaluru residence without the said payment, he will not only shut the door on their face, he will arrange for the people to settle the score, for the payment of the balance amount of Rs.800,000/-.”
5. Here itself, it is relevant to note that all the above allegations are conspicuously absent in the legal notice issued by her on 1.05.2015. There is nothing on record to show that after issuance of the notice, any legal action was taken either for matrimonial relief or for the alleged acts of cruelty by the petitioners. Under the said circumstances, the allegations made in the complaint with regard to the incident that had taken place on 09.11.2011 appears to be an afterthought and engineered only to make out a cause of action to initiate criminal prosecution against the petitioners and to confer jurisdiction on the criminal Court in Bengaluru.
6. Having regard to the overall nature of the allegations made against the petitioners, it is difficult to believe that any such incident has taken place after respondent No.2 had left the company of the petitioners in 2010.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SUNDER BABU AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 244 to persuade the Court that when a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the said complaint is liable to be quashed.’ 8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, in my view, the prosecution of the petitioners is wholly baseless and allegations are ulteriorly motivated to force the petitioners to agree to the demand made by respondent No.2 in her legal notice dated 05.01.2010. Since the entire allegations have taken place outside India, the initiation of proceedings without prior sanction of the Central Government in terms of Section 188 Cr.P.C. cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The FIR in Cr.No.32/2012 and the consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. The complainant is at liberty to institute criminal action against the petitioners on the same cause of action by obtaining necessary permission from the Central Government in terms of Section 188 of Cr.P.C.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-