Karnataka High Court
Smt Naseem Shaik vs State Of Karnataka By on 23 June, 2022
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5103 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NASEEM SHAIK,
W/O ABDUL MUNAF SHAIK,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSEWIFE,
R/AT NO.78, 3RD MAIN,
OPP. ARYAN MOON STONE APARTMENT,
ANAM ENCLAVE ATHAVATH NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 077.
2. MR.MOHAMMED MUNAF,
S/O SHAIK MEERAN,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
OCC:RETIRED
R/AT NO.78, 3RD MAIN,
OPP. ARYAN MOON STONE APARTMENT,
ANAM ENCLAVE, ATHAVATH NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 077.
3. SMT.SHIRIN AASMA,
W/O SHAHADAB K MITHAIGHAR,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC: SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
R/AT B-801, SALALPURIA,
SYMPHONY APARTMENT,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
CHIKKATHOGURU, OPP-BMW SHOWROOM,
BANGALORE - 560 100.
4. MR.SHADAB METHAIGHAR,
S/O KARIM SAAB METHAIGHAR,
2
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC:SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
R/AT B-801, SALALPURIA,
SYMPHONY APARTMENT,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
CHIKKATHOGURU, OPP-BMW SHOWROOM,
BANGALORE - 560 100.
5. MR.MOHAMMAD MEERAN SHAIK @ FIAZ,
S/O ABDUL MUNAF SHAIK,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCC:SOFTWARE ENGINEER,
R/AT NO.78, 3RD MAIN,
OPP ARYAN MOON STONE APARTMENT,
ANAM ENCLAVE ATHAVATH NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 077.
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.701,
7TH FLOOR, ABU DHBABI,
PLAZA HOTEL APARTMENTS,
NAJDA STREET, CORNER ELECTRA STREET,
ABU DHABI, UAE
PO BOX 52588.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.MAHESH S, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.DINESH KUMAR RAO K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
J.C.NAGAR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE.
(REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560 001).
2. HUDA GULAM HUSSAIN,
W/O MOHAMMAD FAISAL SHAIKH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCC:HOUSE WIFE,
3
R/O NO.5, C/O MOHAMMAD FAISAL,
A.T.STREET, J.C.NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.IMRAN PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND
FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME
NO.46/2019 OF J.C.NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
(REGISTERED FOR OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A, 506 R/W SEC.34
OF IPC AND U/S.3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT),
PENDING ON THE FILE OF VIII ACMM, COURT BENGALURU IN
PCR NO.4635/2019.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Private complaint is filed by respondent No.2
alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of accused
No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3 are parents-in-law and
accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 are sister-in law and brother-
in-law of the second respondent. It is further alleged
that the she was subjected to cruelty both mentally
and physically and also there was a demand made by
the accused to bring money from the parental home.
2. Learned Magistrate referred the complaint
to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. The police registered FIR for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961. Taking exception to the same
petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6 are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-accused
submits that except omnibus and general allegations
there is no specific allegations as to how and in what
manner the petitioners-accused subjected the second
respondent to cruelty and also there was a demand
made to bring money from the parental home. Hence,
he submits that in the absence of any material the
registration of the FIR against the petitioners-accused
is without any substance.
4. On the other hand, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-
State submits that the allegations made in the
complaint clearly discloses the commission of
cognizable offences alleged against the petitioners-
accused and the police have rightly registered FIR and
the same does not warrant any interference and
sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have considered the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the parties.
6. A perusal of the complaint discloses that
except omnibus and general allegations there is no
specific allegations as to how and what manner the
petitioners-accused subjected the second respondent
to cruelty and also there was a demand made to the
second respondent to bring money from the parental
home.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar reported in
2022 SCC online SC 162 at paragraph-18 has held
as follows:
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse
of section 498A IPC and the increased
tendency of implicating relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes, without
analysing the long term ramifications of a trial
on the complainant as well as the accused. It is
further manifest from the said judgments that
false implication by way of general omnibus
allegations made in the course of matrimonial
dispute, if left unchecked would result in
misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
court by way of its judgments has warned the
courts from proceeding against the relatives
and in-laws of the husband when no prima
facie case is made out against them."
8. In the absence of any specific allegations
and material, the registration of FIR on the basis of
omnibus and general allegations against the
petitioners-accused to falsely implicate the
petitioners-accused is without any substance and
continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
petitioners will be an abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned FIR in Cr. No.46/2019
registered by J.C.Nagar, police station, Bengaluru
insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 6
is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKA
