Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Sami Ul Huq vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 April, 2023
Bench: S Rachaiah
-1-
CRL.P No. 680 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 680 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED SAMI UL HUQ
S/O. MOHAMMED KALEEMULLA HUQ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT :#6, 6TH STREET
'D' BLOCK, ANNANAGAR EAST
CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600 102.
WORKING AT:
FLAT NO.422, 4TH FLOOR
YASMEEN BUILDING
INDUSTRIAL AREA 6
BEHIND CRICKET STADIUM
SHARJAH, UAE
2. SMT. SHABEENA NIZAM
W/O. MOHAMMED NIZAM QURESHI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
3. MOHAMMED NIZAM QURESHI
S/O. QURESHI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
BOTH RESIDING AT #6,6TH STREET
'D' BLOCK, ANNANAGAR EAST
CHENNAI, TAMILNADU - 600 102.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. OMAR SHARIFF, ADVOCATE)
-2-
CRL.P No. 680 of 2023
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY.K.R PURAM P.S
K.R PURAM, BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY THE
LEARNED S.P.P
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. SUFINA KAVAL
D/O. S.K.MASTAN
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/A NO.18 AKSHAYA LAYOUT
2ND BLOCK, 21TH ROSS
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
BANAGLORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER 1,2 AND 3
IN C.C.NO.55972/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED X
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
323,506(B),307,504,498(A),509 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3
AND 4 OF D.P ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD
THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING / VIDEO CONFERENCING
HEARING AND RESERVED ON 07.02.2023 AT THE PRINCIPAL
BENCH AT BENGALURU, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF JUDGMENT, BEFORE KALABURAGI BENCH, THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.P No. 680 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioners filed this petition under section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') seeking to quash
the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.55972/2016 on the file of
the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, for the offences under sections 323, 506(B), 307,
504, 498(A), 509 r/w 34 of IPC and Dections 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act (for short 'D.P. Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner No.1 is the husband of the complainant,
petitioner No.2 is the sister-in-law of the complainant,
petitioner No.3 is the husband of petitioner No.2. The
complainant is the legally wedded wife of petitioner No.1. The
marriage was solemnized / performed on 13.05.2010. The
complainant made several allegations against the petitioners
and their relatives, filed private complaint before the learned
Magistrate. The learned Magistrate directed the jurisdictional
police to register the case on 02.05.2011. The jurisdictional
police registered the case in Crime No.151/2011 for the
offences stated supra. After conducting investigation, charge
sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 10.
CRL.P No. 680 of 2023
3. Heard Sri Omar Shariff, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Rahul Rai.K., learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondents.
4. Sri Omar Shariff, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the case against the petitioners had split up and
accused Nos.4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have faced the trial in
S.C.No.1209/2016 and the Trial Court after considering the oral
and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted the
accused. The allegations made against the petitioners herein
and the accused who faced the trial are one and the same or in
other words, the allegations made against all the accused are
similar in nature. Therefore, the benefit of parity should be
given to the petitioners and extend the acquittal order passed
by the Trial Court to the petitioners also.
5. Per contra, Sri Rahul Rai, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits
that the allegations made against the petitioners are altogether
different, the accused who faced the trial are connected
remotely to the complainant, whereas the petitioner No.1 is the
husband of the complainant and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are
CRL.P No. 680 of 2023
nearest relatives. In other words, they are the in-laws.
Therefore, the Court has to peruse the allegations made
against the petitioners independently rather than considering
the judgment of the Trial Court. Making such submission,
learned High Court Government Pleader prays to dismiss the
petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and perused the material on record. It is necessary to peruse
the judgment of the Trial Court in S.C.No.1209/2016,
particularly the paragraph No.21. The said paragraph which
reads thus:-
"21. On considering the entire papers on record and
the evidence adduced by all the witness, it is relevant
to note that during the evidence, P.W.1 who is the
complainant and wife of accused no.1, and victim in
this case, in the complaint which is at Ex.P.1, she has
mentioned as:
"Accused persons have thus committed
the offences punishable U/s.307, 498A,
323, 354, 506, 509 r/w Sec. 109 and 34
Indian Penal Code r/w Sec.3, 4 and 6 of
D.P.Act, which are within the cognizance
of this Hon'ble court since the offences of
dowry are continuing offense."
CRL.P No. 680 of 2023
Further during the evidence of P.W.1, she deposing
that at Sharja her husband was not cordially residing
with her and later she came back to Chennai. Further
deposing that she has signed the papers which her
father had prepared and she has not visited police
station and that she does not know what is written in
it. Further deposing that she is working and residing
at Dubai and that accused persons No.1 has not tried
to kill her nor did any demand for dowry. That she
does not know whether the complaint is in English
and that she had given complaint. Further deposing
that she does not know about the mahazar conducted
at K.R Puram residence and she has not signed at the
spot but signed at the police station. Further deposing
that she has not given further statement and that she
is not residing with her husband and hence complaint
was given. Further cross-examined by the counsel for
accused persons for which this witness has denied the
suggestion that she does not remember the 40 items
which were given 10 years back to accused persons,
raises doubt on the case of the prosecution. P.W.2
deposing that she does not remember what items
were given at the time of marriage and she does not
know about the profession of accused persons No.1.
Further deposing that she does not know how long
her daughter resided with accused persons No.1 at
Chennai and there are no issues due to the wed lock.
Further deposing that her daughter and accused
CRL.P No. 680 of 2023
persons No.1 were residing at Dubai and she does not
know what happened between them and why case is
registered against accused persons. Further deposing
that her daughter has not told anything about the
harassment and she has not given any statement to
the police. Further deposing that she does not know
to read and write Kannada and does not know what is
written in the statement. Further deposing that they
had given gold at the time of marriage and nothing
else, all these aspects give rise to doubt on the case
of the prosecution."
6. It appears from the judgment of the Trial Court that
the witnesses namely PW.1 turned hostile not supported the
case of the prosecution. PW.2 is the mother of PW.1 also
turned hostile. Even though they have been treated hostile and
cross-examined by the prosecution, nothing has been elicited to
support the prosecution. Such being the fact, subjecting the
petitioners to face the trial once the material witnesses have
turned hostile, certainly would be considered as abuse of
process of law. Hence, it is appropriate to extend the benefit of
acquittal which the other accused have availed after facing the
trial to the petitioners.
7. In the light of the observation, I proceed to pass
the following:
CRL.P No. 680 of 2023
ORDER
i) The criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The criminal proceeding in CC No.55972/2016 for
the offences under Sections 323, 506-B, 307, 504,
498-A, 509, read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and
4 of Dowry Prohibition Act on the file of the learned
X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru as against the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 3
is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BSS/un
