IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.535/2013 BETWEEN:
1. Mudaseer Ahmed, S/o. Mohammed Ali, Aged about 42 years, R/at: Door No.649, 10th Cross, 2nd Stage, Rajeev Nagar, Mysuru – 570 002.
2. Tahasin Ahmed, S/o. Shaikh Mohamood, Aged about 45 years, R/at: Udayagiri, Mysuru – 570 019.
3. Nazira Sulthana, W/o. Mudaseer Ahmed, Aged about 41 years, R/at: Door No.649, 10th Cross, 2nd Stage, Rajeev Nagar, Mysuru – 570 002. ... Petitioners (By Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By Udayagiri Police, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Siraj Mohammed @ Siraj, S/o. Late Noor Mohammed, Aged about 60 years, House No.518, Rajeev Nagar Main Road, 1st Stage, Rajeev Nagar, Mysuru – 570 002. ... Respondents (By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP for R1;
Sri. A.G. Sridhar, Advocate for R2 – absent) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.196/2012 registered by the respondent (Udayagiri P.S) Police on the file of the II Additional I C.J. (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Mysuru for the offences p/u/s 306 r/w 34 of IPC.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the FIR in Crime No.196/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r/w 34 of IPC.
2. During the pendency of the petition, the counsel for the petitioners has reported death of the complainant/respondent No.2. Inspite of granting sufficient opportunity, no steps have been taken to bring the legal representatives of the complainant on record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations made against the petitioners do not attract the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC. According to the learned counsel, the allegations made in the complaint disclose that Aris had borrowed loan from the petitioners by offering his documents of title and in this regard petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have threatened and abused the aforesaid Aris which drove the said Aris as well as his parents to consume poison. He further submits that insofar as petitioner No.3/Nazira Sulthana is concerned there are no allegations whatsoever in the complaint or in the material collected by the Investigating Agency to show her involvement in the alleged offence and hence prosecution instituted against the petitioners is a clear abuse of process of Court.
4. On going through the complaint I find that there are clear allegations that on the eve of the incident petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2) abused and threatened the said Aris and his parents. It is alleged that this incident had driven them to consume poison. It is submitted by the learned HCGP that the aforesaid Aris has survived and his statement has been recorded during investigation. If so, prima-facie material is available to show that prior to consumption of poison, the incident had taken place as alleged in the complaint. Therefore, it cannot be said that the allegations made against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2) are without any basis. However, insofar as petitioner No.3 (accused No.3) is concerned, I do not find any averments in the complaint showing her involvement in the alleged incident. In the absence of any such material, registration of FIR against petitioner No.3 (accused No.3) and consequent investigation insofar as petitioner No.3 (accused No.3) is concerned is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, to this extent petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. Petition filed on behalf of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2) is dismissed. Petition filed by petitioner No.3 is allowed. Name of petitioner No.3 shall be deleted from the FIR in Crime No.196/2012. Investigation shall proceed only against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 (accused Nos.1 and 2).
Sd/- JUDGE SV