IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7714 OF 2016 BETWEEN 1 . SRI. ABDUL AZEEZ S/O S ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS MUSLIM R/A BILLA BAI ROAD NEAR CORPORATION BANK MUKKA POST, SURATKAL MANGALORE 575014.
(DELETED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED:06/12/2019) 2 . SMT. RAZIA W/O ANWAR MOHAMMED HINDU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HOUSE MAKER AMEENA SAFA MANZIL PANIYUR ROAD UCHALA, YERMALU BADA VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK 576101.
(BY SRI KRISHNA SWAMY S, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA PADUBIDRI POLICE STATION UDUPI DISTRICT-574111 ...PETITIONERS REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER.
2 . SMT. AYESHA ANWAR MOHAMMED W/O ANWAR MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS MUSLIM F SECTOR, A LANE, R.NO.5 CHEETHA CAMP, MUMBAI MAHARASTRA-400088.
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.355/2014 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.355/2014 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Udupi.
2. The 1st petitioner is no more. Therefore, the petition with respect to the 2nd petitioner is taken up for consideration. Though the 2nd respondent-complainant is served, she has remained absent.
3. In the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, she has alleged that her husband one Anwar Mohammed had married the 2nd petitioner herein subsequent to the marriage between the 2nd respondent and the said Anwar Mohammed. It has been stated in the complaint that the 2nd respondent married Anwar Mohammed on 23.11.1996 at Mumbai. After marriage, the 2nd respondent was taken to Riyadh of Saudi Arabia and she lived with her husband for sometime at Riyadh. The allegations have also been made in the complaint that while the 2nd respondent was living with Anwar Mohammed in Riyadh, she was forced to work against her wishes. In the year 2006, the 2nd respondent returned to Mumbai since she had health issues. Anwar Mohammed was visiting the 2nd respondent once in a year at Mumbai. In the month of July 2013, the 2nd respondent heard that her husband had married once again and therefore came over to Udupi on 20.08.2013 to find out the truth of the fact. It was on that day that the 2nd respondent found the petitioner herein in the house along with Anwar Mohammed while Anwar Mohammed’s brother Farooq Mohamed Shaban and his wife Smt.Haseena were also in the house along with Anwar Mohammed. It is alleged that all the four of them used foul language against the 2nd respondent and assaulted her. It is also alleged that the 2nd respondent was threatened with serious consequences including murder.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to an order dated 04.08.2016 passed in Crl.P.No.7724/2015, which was filed by Farooq Mohamed Shaban, the brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent-complainant and Farooq Mohamed Shaban’s wife Smt.Haseena who have been named in the complaint along with petitioner herein. It is submitted that on the same set of allegations made against the petitioner herein, the co-ordinate Bench has allowed the petition while quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner therein.
5. Learned HCGP submits that the relationship alleged by the complainant and the facts and circumstances of the case as found in Crl.P.No.7724/2015 is not one and the same compared to the case on hand. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that she has married the husband of the 2nd respondent-complainant and therefore the case on hand is one not and the same when compared to the other matter. Therefore, the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.7724/2015 should not be made applicable to this case.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the petition papers.
7. Having perused the complaint in detail and having perused the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in Crl.P.No.7724/2015, this Court finds that the complaint made by the 2nd respondent as against the petitioner herein, Farooq Mohamed Shaban and Smt.Haseena is one and the same. In the very same sentence the name of the petitioner and Smt.Haseena, the 2nd respondent-complainant’s brother-in-law’s wife were also taken. There is no specific allegation made against the petitioner herein. It is stated in the complaint that the incident occurred on 20.08.2013 at 10.00 am. The complaint does not make out any ingredients of Section 498-A of IPC as against the petitioner. The petitioner has not made any statement in the petition that she had married Anwar Mohammed. Therefore, on the same set of allegations when the co-accused i.e., Smt.Haseena and Farooq Mohamed Shaban were able to secure an order quashing the proceedings as against the said two persons, similar benefit is required to be given to the petitioner herein.
8. In that view of the matter, the findings of the co-ordinate Bench that the offences alleged against the petitioners therein, punishable under Section 498-A, 420, 506, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC are false and are equally applicable to the petitioner herein and are therefore hereby held as false allegations. There is absolutely no basis for the allegations against the present petitioner and therefore, this Court proceeds to allow the criminal petition.
9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed.
The proceedings against the present petitioner in C.C.No.355/2014 pending on the file of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi stands quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE DL