IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6534 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. SRI ZUBAIR AHMED SHAFEEQ S/O A N SHAFEEQ AHMED AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, (DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.6.2015) 2. SRI.A.N.SHAFEEQ AHMED S/O A.ABDUN NABI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 3. SMT.RAMIZA BANU W/O A N SHAFEEQ AHMED AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.183, 2ND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, J H B C S LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560078 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT POLICE STATION REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE.
2. SMT.HABIBA W/O ZABIR AHMED SHAFEEQ AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.183, 2ND FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, JHBCS LAYOUT, KADIRENAHALLI, NEAR DAYANANDA SAGAR COLLEGE, J.P.NAGAR, BANGALORE-78 AND ALSO R/AT SRI SRI EESHATVAM PLOT NO. 69, FLAT NO.202, 2ND FLOOR, JUBILEE GARDEN, KOTHAGUDA/KONDAPUR R.R.DISTRICT HYDERBAD-500084 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: DORERAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.20617/2014 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 498-A, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS3 & 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT OF 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition was initially filed by petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3/accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.20617/2014 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 498A, 506 Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, by order of this Court dated 30.06.2015, petitioner No.1 was ordered to be struck of from the array of parties. Petition is prosecuted only by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 viz., accused Nos.2 and 3.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations made in the complaint do not disclose any offences by the petitioners. All the allegations made in the complaint are directed only against accused No.1. Respondent No.2/complainant did not live with petitioner Nos.2 and 3 at any point of time, as such, there was no occasion for petitioner Nos.2 and 3 to subject her to cruelty and harassment. Even with regard to accused No.1, during the course of trial, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 have entered into a settlement and the factum of the compromise is recorded by the trial court in its proceedings dated 26.04.2019 in C.C.No.20617/2017. Respondent No.2 has withdrawn the allegations made against accused No.1. As a result, there is no basis for continuation of prosecution against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and thus seeks to quash the proceedings pending against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (accused Nos.2 and 3).
3. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 has argued in support of the impugned action contending that the material on record prima-facie disclose involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences and hence, there is no case for quashing the proceedings.
4. Counsel for respondent No.2 has remained absent and has not addressed any arguments.
5. On careful perusal of the complaint lodged by second respondent, I do not find any material therein insofar as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned showing their involvement in the commission of alleged offences under sections 498A and 506 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. According to the complainant, ten days after the marriage, she went to London and thereafter to Dubai alongwith her husband accused No.1. There is nothing on record to show that the complainant lived with petitioners at any point of time. Except making vague and general allegations in the complaint that accused No.1 and his parents demanded Rs.80.00 lakhs from the parents of the complainant and thereafter, her parents had provided them with a car, furniture, cash of Rs.6.00 lakhs and gifts of Rs.2.00 lakhs, there is nothing on record to show that either the car, cash or articles were given to the petitioners. All these articles appears to have been given to accused No.1 and not to petitioners and as such, no material is available to prosecute the petitioners for the alleged offences under Indian Penal Code or under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act. In the above circumstances, there being no material whatsoever to substantiate the allegations made against the petitioners and having regard to the settlement already arrived at between accused No.1 and the complainant, in my view, the prosecution of the petitioners in the fact situation of the case is unwarranted and would amount to abuse of process of Court.
In view of the aforestated reasons, petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.20617/2014 on the file of learned V Addl. CMM, Bengaluru are quashed insofar as the petitioners viz., accused Nos.2 and 3 are concerned.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-