1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4223/2020
BETWEEN:
1. MR ASLAM MOHAMMED
S/O MR. MEER MOHAMMED HASHIM
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT
2. SHAMEEMUNNISA
S/O MEER MOHAMMED HASHIM RETD (KPSC)
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
3. MEER MOHAMMED HASHIM
S/O LATE ABDUL HAKIM REHAMAN
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
APPELLANTS 1 TO 3 ARE
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NO.22
2ND CROSS, ANJANEPPA BLOCK,
KRISHNAMMA GARDEN
BENSON TOWN POST
BENGALURU-560046
4. HAJIRA MOHAMMEDI
W/O SYED BABAJAN
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT
NO.10, KOOLZ ENCLAVE APARTMENTS
NO.F1, 1ST FLOOR, KRISHNAMMA GARDEN
BENSON TOWN POST
BENGALURU-560046
2
5. MOHAMMED AIJAZ
S/O MR MEER MOHAMMED HASHIM
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NO.22
2ND CROSS, ANJANEPPA BLOCK,
KRISHNAMMA GARDEN
BENSON TOWN POST
BENGALURU-560046
6. MOHAMMED AKRAM
S/O MR MEER MOHAMMED HASHIM
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT NO.55,
KOOLZ OPAL HILL APARTMENTS
FLAT NO.A2, 1ST MAIN,
SHESHADRI ROAD
BENSON TOWN POST
BENGALURU-560046
7. MOHAMMED IQBAL
S/O MR MEER MOHAMMED HASHIM
AGED AOBUT 40 YEARS,
PERMANENTLY RESIDNG AT
NO.55, KOOLZ OPAL HILL APARTMENTS
FLAT NO.A2, 1ST MAIN,
SHESHADRI ROAD
BENSON TOWN POST
BENGALURU-560046. ... PETITIONERS
[BY MS. MONICA PATIL, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCE)
AND SRI. SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
J C NAGAR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU-560046
3
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ATTACHED TO THE COURT
2. MRS. SYEDA HAJIRA TABRIN
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
REISING AT NO.22/2
ANJANAPPA BLOCK
KRUSHNAMMA GARDEN
BENSON TOWN
BENGALURU-560 046. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE OREDER DATED
03.11.2020)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR BEARING
CRIME No.114/2019 DATED 06.12.2019 (ANNEXURE-A)
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1, J.C. NAGAR POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 8TH
ADDITIONAL CMM, COURT, BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 06.12.2019 OF THE
RESPONDENT No.2 (ANNEXURE-B).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for admission, with consent of the parties taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
3. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the impugned FIR in Crime No.114/2019 dated 6th December, 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 504 of I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. On perusal of the factual matrix of the case, the complainant had lodged the complaint on 06.12.2019. Based on the complaint, police have registered the case for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 504 of I.P.C and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is alleged in the complaint that the marriage of the complainant was solemnized with petitioner No.1 on 13.12.2015 and the complainant had joined the 5 matrimonial house. Both the complainant and petitioner No.1 are earlier neighbourers. They got married earlier and obtained divorce from the first marriage. After the marriage of the complainant with petitioner No.1, she was living with him. The husband of the complainant and his family members looked after her well for a short period and thereafter subjected her for both mental and physical harassment saying that she has not given any dowry. The complainant tolerated the cruelty meted out to her by them. The family members of the petitioner No.1 were not providing food to her and her son and so also the petitioners have not allowed the complainant to sleep with her husband and subjected her for both mental and physical cruelty. The father- in-law and sister-in-laws used to abuse her in filthy language. The husband of the complainant went to abroad leaving her in the year 2018 and thereafter, the harassment by the other petitioners was continued. The other petitioners have also instigated her husband and the family members, though they were staying in abroad. Based on the complaint, case has been registered.
6
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submit that no such incident has been taken place and she was not subjected to any mental or physical cruelty and so also there is no demand for any money after the marriage of the complainant with petitioner No.1. Only a false complaint has been filed. It is also contended that the petitioners are staying abroad and hence, the question of instigating the family members of petitioner No.1 does not arise.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the averments of the complaint are very specific, wherein the specific allegations are made that after solemnization of the marriage between the petitioner No.1 and the complainant in the year 2015, the complainant was subjected to both mental and physical harassment. When such specific allegation is made in the complaint, the question of invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the registration of the case against the petitioners does not arise. The Court has to look into the contents of the complaint while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in the morning session through video conference for a period of 20 minutes, the learned counsel who argued the case made the submission that she would appear before this Court when this Court about to pass the order. In the afternoon session, the learned counsel sent another colleague, who makes the submission that they are going to settle the matter. This Court has issued notice against the complainant and complainant, inspite of service of notice, did not choose to appear before this Court. Hence, the question of settlement as submitted by the learned counsel does not arise.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the afternoon session brought to the notice of this Court para No.20 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, and would contend that mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them 8 overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency to involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in a matrimonial dispute specially if it happens soon after the wedding.
9. Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sreenivasan v. State by Inspector of Police and Another reported in (2019) 8 SCC 642 and brought to the notice of this Court para No.6, wherein the Apex Court has held that as the appellant was not even residing in the address of the complainant and his family members who are accused No.1 to accused No.4 and in absence of specific allegations and overt acts, we are of the view that if the proceedings are allowed to go on against the appellant, it amounts to abuse of process.
10. Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh and Others v. State of T.N. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 507 and brought to the notice of this Court para No.6, wherein the Apex Court has made an observation that at the most, the allegations reveal that her 9 sister-in-law was insulting and making derogatory remarks against the complainant. The bald allegations made against her sister-in-law seem to suggest the anxiety of the informant to rope in as many of the husband's relations as possible. Neither the FIR nor the charge sheet furnished the legal basis to the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the appellant Gowri Ramaswamy.
11. Learned counsel referring to these judgments would contend that in the case on hand also, even while registering the case against the family members, no specific allegations are made and the fact that they are residing abroad is also not in dispute. Hence, the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra are aptly applicable to the case on hand.
12. This Court has given anxious consideration to the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra. There is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the said judgments that in a matrimonial dispute, there is a tendency of roping of all the family members. However, it is also the settled law that while quashing the FIR, the Court has to take note of 10 the allegations made in the complaint. In the judgments quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Apex Court has discussed in detail with regard to roping of family members considering both FIR as well as the charge sheet and the observation made therein is also clear that neither the FIR nor the charge sheet disclose that the case has been made out to proceed with the case and comes to the occlusion that it amounts to abuse of process.
13. In the case of hand, the question of abusing of process does not arise since the case is registered based on the complaint and I have already pointed out the specific allegations are made in the complaint and when the specific allegations are made in the complaint, this Court cannot exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the very registration of the case when it requires to be investigated. If no allegations are made in the complaint, then there could have been a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is an abuse of process of law. This Court has to take note of the contents of the complaint in order to analyse whether this is a fit 11 case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and exercise the powers to quash the registration of the FIR. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court has to exercise the same sparingly. If the complaint does not disclose the allegations made against the petitioners to invoke the offences alleged against them and if it amounts to abuse of process and leads to miscarriage of justice, then only the Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or otherwise, the Court cannot exercise the discretion under Section 482 of CR.P.C.
14. Having perused the contents of the complaint as narrated above, the specific allegations are made against the petitioners that they subjected the complainant for both mental and physical harassment immediately after the marriage which was taken place in the year 2015 and the specific allegations are made that even though some of the petitioners are residing abroad, they also instigated the husband and family members of petitioner No.1 not to provide food to both the complainant and her son. When such specific allegations are made in the complaint, the same requires to be investigated and thus, the 12 question of quashing the registration of the FIR does not arise. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to quash the FIR registered against the petitioners. In so far as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the Court has considered the matter after completion of the investigation and taking of the cognizance. Hence, the same is not applicable to the case on hand since in the case on hand, only the case has been registered based on the contents of the complaint but not investigated and filed charge sheet.
15. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:-
ORDER The petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE PYR