IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5693 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
1. SHABIR SULAIMAN SAIT S/O A SULAIMAN 2. SMT THAIRA W/O A SULAIMAN 3. A SULAIMAN @ BASHEER S/O AHMED SAIT 4. NAJUMA BAI @ NAZI W/O SHABIR SULAIMAN SAIT PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.479 A. AHAMED MANZIL, DAVIS DALE ROAD, OOTY THE NILGIRIS-643001.
5. NAZEER ISMAIL @ SIDDIQUE SAIT S/O M H ISMAIL RESIDING AT NO. 16/55 A, ORIENTAL HOUSE, KARUVELIDPADDY KOCHI-5 KERALA 6. RUKUSANA NAZEER W/O NAZEER ISMAIL @ SIDDIQUE SAIT RESIDING AT NO 16/55 A, ORIENTAL HOUSE, KARUVELIPADDY KOCHI-5 KERALA 7. NAURIN BAI D/O NAZEER ISMAIL @ SIDDIQUE SAIT RESIDING AT NO 16/55 A, ORIENTAL HOUSE, KARUVELIPADDY KOCHI-5 KERALA (BY SRI: P.S.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTHANUR POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560077 2. FATHIMA @ KHATIJA W/O HASSAN PEER MOHAMMED RESIDING AT NO.66, N NAGENHALLI KOTHANOOR POST BANGALORE-560077 ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SMT: SAIRA BANU, SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.32/2011 (IN CR. NO.32/2011 REGISTERED BY THE KOTHANUR POLICE STATION) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XI A.C.M.M., MAYOHALL, BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners and the Special Power of Attorney Holder of second respondent and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners have challenged the charge sheet in C.C.No.24847/2012 for the offences punishable under sections 448 and 504 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset submitted that the second respondent is a habitual complainant; She has filed series of complaints against the petitioners out of vengeance and spite and so far more than 90 complaints have been filed by her in succession. Referring to the earlier order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.5694/2012 dated 17.06.2019, learned counsel has pointed out that the instant complaint also is filed on the very same allegations which are already held to be false by this Court and the proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.5694/2012 have been quashed on that ground.
4. In reply, the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the second respondent would submit that the incident has taken place as stated in the charge sheet. During the occurrence, petitioners barged into the house of the second respondent and issued threats and took away the photographs.
5. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 argued in line with the contentions urged by second respondent contending that prima-facie material is available in support of the charges against the petitioners and the petitioners have not made out any grounds to quash the proceedings.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
6. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.03.2011, at about 8.30 p.m., all the petitioners herein trespassed into the house of the second respondent and abused respondent No.2, CWs-2, 3 and 5 and took away the photographs of the engagement of her daughter. Even though after investigation, charge sheet is laid against the petitioners, yet, it is relevant to note that charge sheet is silent as to how the petitioners came to the house of second respondent on the date of the alleged incident. No investigation has been conducted in this regard. In this context, it is relevant to note that even in the earlier petition disposed of by this Court in Crl.P.No.5694/2012, a charge-sheet was laid by the very same police on the very same allegation that on 19.02.2011, all the petitioners herein came to the house of the complainant/respondent No.2 and demanded her to hand over all the negatives and original photographs of engagement of her daughter with one Shabeer and forced her to write a statement to withdraw Cr.No.2/2011 and when she refused to do so, they started searching for the photographs by keeping knives at her daughter’s neck and forcibly took away the engagement photographs and copy of the album.
7. Here itself, it is pertinent to note that the very case of the complainant is that on 19.02.2011, petitioners took away the engagement photographs kept in the album. If so, there was no necessity for the petitioners herein once again to go to her house and threaten her to give very same photographs. That apart, it is observed in the earlier order that the engagement photographs were very much available with petitioner No.1 himself. Under the said circumstances, the allegations made in the petition appear to be concocted and fabricated only to foist a false case against the petitioners.
8. Considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioners and the character of evidence collected by the investigating agency, I am of the view that the prosecution is launched against the petitioners only as a sequel to the break up of engagement. The proceedings are vengeful and ulteriorly motivated. In that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioners being an utter abuse of process of Court cannot be allowed to continue.
For all these reasons, the petition is allowed. Proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.24847/2012 on the file of learned XI Addl. CMM, Bengaluru is quashed.
*mn/-
Sd/- JUDGE