IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8450/2015 Between:
1. S.Riyaz Ahmed, Aged about 61 years, S/o late Abdul Sathar C.M., 64 IV Main Road, III Cross, Bannimantap C Layout, Mysuru City – 570 015.
2. Jabeen Taj, Aged about 52 years, W/o Riyaz Ahmed, 64 IV Main Road, III Cross, Bannimantap C Layout, Mysuru City – 570 015.
3. Akram, Aged about 43 years, S/o Mohammed Hussain, 8, A J Block, II Cross, N.R.Mohalla, Mysuru – 570 015. …Petitioners (By Sri Syed Abdul Saboor, Advocate) And:
1. Naveeda Begum, Aged about 26 years, 124, New Bademakan, Bangalore Road, Mysore – 570 015.
2. State by Mahila Police, Represented by its S.P.P., High Court Building, Bangalore – 560 001.
...Respondents (By Sri.Vijayakumar Majage, Addl. S.P.P., for R2; R1 served and unrepresented) ---
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.154/2015 in the Court of the IV Addl. City Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC at Mysuru.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners are shown as accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 in the charge sheet filed against them in C.C.No.154/2015 before the IV Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Mysuru, arising out of Crime No.49/2014 of Women Police Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under sections 498A read with 34 of IPC and section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.2. Respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented.
3. A reading of the charge sheet and the averments made in the complaint disclose that respondent No.1 married accused No.1 on 30.05.2005 and they lived cordially for about six months. In the complaint it is stated that, thereafter her husband left the house after quarreling with accused Nos.2 and 3 and she was sent out of the house by accused Nos.2 and 3 and since 2006, she has been residing in her parents’ house.
4. Though there are allegations that of late, her husband had come to her parents’ house asking her to give Rs.2,00,000/-, the said allegation is directed only against accused No.1 and not against any of the petitioners herein. The said allegation does not constitute the ingredients of section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in so far as the petitioners are concerned. As such, the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act cannot be sustained.
5. Insofar as the allegation constituting the offence under section 498A of IPC is concerned, according to the complainant, the alleged incident had taken place in the year 2006. The complaint was lodged in the year 2014. According to the complainant, about a month prior to lodging of the complaint, her husband had come to her parents’ house, which was opposed by the petitioners herein. These allegations are contrary to the earlier allegations made in the complaint that petitioners herein were causing cruelty and harassment to the complainant. From the reading of the complaint, it could be gathered that only after accused No.1 visited her parents house, she has initiated criminal action against petitioners. The allegations made in the F.I.R., even if accepted as true, in my view, do not prima facie make out the ingredients of offence under section 498A of IPC insofar as petitioners are concerned. Except the said self-serving statement of complainant, no material is available on record to substantiate the said accusations insofar as petitioners are concerned. In that view of the matter, prosecution instituted against petitioners being baseless and vexatious is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed. Charge sheet in C.C.No.154/2015 before the IV Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Mysuru, in Crime No.49/2014 of Women Police Station, Mysuru is quashed only insofar as petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3 and 7 are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss