Karnataka High Court
L. Allabakasha S/O L. Nabi Sab vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 June, 2022
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 101101 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101101 OF 2017 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. L.ALLABAKASHA S/O L.NABI SAB,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: WARD NO.11, DOOR NO.52,
MULANGI SANJIVAPPA ROAD,
TAZIA STREET, BALLARI-583101.
2. L.PARVEEN KOUSER W/O L. ALLABAKASHA,
AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: WARD NO.11, DOOR NO.52,
MULANGI SANJIVAPPA ROAD,
TAZIA STREET, BALLARI-583101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.S.SANGATI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS P.S.I. BRUCEPET P.S., BALLARI,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
2. AKTHAR IBANU W/O MOHAMMED FAROOQ,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
LAXMAN R/O: D.NO.8, WARD NO.2,
KATTIMANI
IMAM KHAN STREET,
AMLIBAGH, BALLARI-593101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1)
(SMT.SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADV. FOR R2)
-2-
CRL.P No. 101101 of 2017
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
IN C.C.NO.1761 OF 2014 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 498-A READ WITH 34 OF IPC READ WITH SECTIONS 3
AND 4 OF D.P.ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF I ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARY, INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS
HEREIN/ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NOS.3 AND 4 RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri B.S.Sangati, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners, Smt.Soubhagya Vakkund, learned counsel
for Sri Lakshmikant Reddy for respondent No.2 and
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1.
2. The petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. with the following prayer.
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble
High Court be pleased to set aside entire
criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1761 of 2014
for the offence punishable under Sections 498-
A read with Section 34 of IPC read with
Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act pending on the file
of the Court of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,
Ballary, insofar as petitioners herein/arrayed as
CRL.P No. 101101 of 2017
accused No.3 and 4 respectively, in the interest
of justice."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged by Akthar Banu wife
of Mohammad Farooq with the Brucepet Police Station,
Ballari whereby Brucepet Police registered a case in Crime
No.48/2014 for the offence punishable under Section 498-
A read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4
of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. Gist of the complaint averments reveal that the
complainant got married to one Mohammed Farooq son of
Abdul Rahoof on 27.01.2008. The complainant joined the
matrimonial home. At the time of marriage Rs.80,000/-
cash, 8 tolas of gold and household articles worth
Rs.50,000/- was given as dowry. Few months after the
marriage, the complainant became pregnant. At that
juncture, there was a demand for additional dowry in a
sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, otherwise husband of the
complainant would be married for the 2nd time. The same
CRL.P No. 101101 of 2017
was intimated to elders of the complainant's family. Elders
of the complainant's family convened a panchayat and
requested the relatives of the husband including the
parents of the husband and told them that, they cannot
pay Rs.1,00,000/- as additional dowry as they are poor.
At that juncture, they insisted for the payment of
Rs.1,00,000/- otherwise they wanted parents of the
complainant to be settled in their favour.
5. On 26.03.2009, the complainant delivered a
male baby and after the confinement period, she again
visited the matrimonial home. At that juncture, they
abused the complainant and also told the complainant that
the child born to the complainant is not by the relationship
of the husband and also they physically and mentally
harassed the complainant. However, the complainant
somehow put up with all these harassment on 09.06.2013
she delivered another male baby. About 7 months earlier
to lodging of the complaint, the complainant was left in
the matrimonial home and the husband of the complainant
CRL.P No. 101101 of 2017
went to Bengaluru and started residing there. About 4
months earlier to the lodging of the complaint, the parent-
in-laws also left the house, and left with no alternative the
complainant was not given any food and other needs, she
lodged a complaint seeking action against the accused
persons.
6. The police after registering the case filed
charge sheet against all the accused persons including the
petitioners herein. Thereafter, the cognizance is taken and
accused are summoned before jurisdictional magistrate.
The said order is challenged before this Court in this
petition.
7. Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the sister-in-
law and petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law of the
complainant. Admittedly, they are living separately in
Tazia Street Ballari under a different roof. Except a
omnibus allegation against the petitioners herein that too
very vague in nature, no specific allegations are found
against the petitioners in the complaint itself. The police
CRL.P No. 101101 of 2017
also were not able to collect such evidence during the
course of investigation so as to establish the direct nexus
with crime alleged against the petitioners herein. Taking
note of the same, learned counsel for the petitioners
sought for quashing of further proceedings as against
these petitioners.
8. Per contra, Smt.Soubhagya Vakkund, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 contended that these
petitioners have also instigated the husband of the
complainant and other relatives to harass the complainant
and therefore, material on record are sufficient to
establish their involvement in the crime and sought for
dismissal of the petition.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader
supported the arguments put forth by the learned counsel
for respondent No.2.
10. Perused the material on record, in view of the
rival contentions of the parties.
CRL.P No. 101101 of 2017
11. Admittedly, there are no specific allegations
found against these petitioners except making a omnibus
and vague statement against the petitioners in the
complaint. The charge sheet materials especially column
No.17 also does not depict any specific overt-act insofar
as these two petitioners are concerned. Admittedly, these
two petitioners are residing separately in a separate
house. In a matter of this nature, it is not uncommon that
all the relatives of the husband would also be roped in for
the reasons best known to the complainant and in many
cases only to harass them.
12. In this regard, there was an occasion before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein almost on similar set of
facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that, in such
cases, the misuse of the dowry demand case should not
be there against husband's relatives in case of
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of
Bihar and others reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC
162.
CRL.P No. 101101 of 2017
13. In view of the principles of law enunciated in
the above referred judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that, a case
is made out by the petitioners to quash further
proceedings. Accordingly this Court pass the following.
ORDER
The criminal petition is allowed.
Further proceedings in C.C.No.1761 of 2014 on the
file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari in pursuance of
a case registered in Crime No.48/2014 of Brucepet Police
Station for the offence punishable under Section 498-A
read with Section 34 of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act are quashed insofar as petitioners
are concerned.
SD/-
JUDGE
EM
