Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mohammed Shahid vs State Of Karnataka on 27 November, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43397
CRL.P No. 10295 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10295 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. MR. MOHAMMED SHAHID
S/O LATE ATHEEQ AHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT NO.20/97, 2ND CROSS
M M ROAD, ARASIKERE TOWN
HASSAN-573 103.
2. SHAKILA BANU
W/O LATE ATHEEQ AHAMMED
D/O MOHAMMED HAYATH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.20/97, 2ND CROSS
M M ROAD, ARASIKERE TOWN
HASSAN-573 103.
3. SADIKA BANU
W/O AFROZ PASHA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
Digitally signed by B
R/AT NO.14/2, 2ND CROSS
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR M M RASTE, ARASIKERE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF HASSAN-573 103.
KARNATAKA
4. SANIYA BANU
W/O MOHAMMED SAMEER
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/AT B-20/49, M M ROAD
ARASIKERE TOWN, HASSAN-573 103.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRANAV RAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH STATION HEAD OFFICER
TURUVEKERE POLICE STATION
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43397
CRL.P No. 10295 of 2022
TUMKUR-572 227
REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MRS RESHMA
W/O MOHAMMED SHAHID
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
R/AT NEAR MAYOUR SCHOOL
DEBBEGHATTA ROAD
TURUVEKRE, TUMKUR-572 227.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
R-2 IS SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN C.C.NO.150/2020 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE
P/U/S.323, 498-A, 504, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4
OF DP ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC COURT, TURUVEKERE AT TUMKURU, IS PRODUCED AS
ANNEXURE D AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The 2nd respondent lodged the FIR alleging that she is
the legally wedded wife of the petitioner- accused No.1 and her
marriage with the accused No.1 was solemnized on 27.1.2019,
and at the time of the marriage dowry was given to the
petitioners. The petitioners used to subject her to cruelty both
mentally and physically, and also a demand was made to bring
dowry from her parental home.
2. On 16.07.2019, the accused forcibly made the 2nd
respondent to consume tablets, and when she gained conscious
she found herself in the Arasikere Hospital. Thereafter,
NC: 2023:KHC:43397
panchayat was conducted and again petitioners accused
subjected her to cruelty and also demanded to bring additional
dowry from her parental home.
3. On 26.10.2019, disregarding the advice made by
the pachayat, the defacto-complainant was thrown out of the
matrimonial home to get additional dowry, and when she was
staying in the parental home, on 29.10.2019, accused No.1
came there and picked up the quarrel with her and her mother
and also assaulted, abused and threatened the defacto-
complainant to get additional Dowry of Rs.50,000/-, failing
which, he would do away with her life.
4. Thereafter, the defacto complainant was staying in
her parental home for more than 6 months, and on 7.1.2020,
accused No.1 husband came to her parental home and
assaulted and abused her and threatened her to get additional
dowry and also snatched her mangalasutra from her neck and
went away.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
FIR was lodged only after the petitioner-accused No.1 sent a
notice calling upon the 2nd respondent to resume conjugal
rights. He further submits that except omnibus and general
allegations there is no specific overt acts as to how and in what
manner each of the petitioners-accused subjected her to
cruelty.
NC: 2023:KHC:43397
6. He further submits that the 2nd respondent-defacto
complainant left the matrimonial home on 26.10.2019 and the
FIR was lodged on 12.01.2020 without offering plausible
explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR.
7. He further submits that, in the examination-in-
chief, the defacto-complainant in Crl.Misc.No.62/2020 had
categorically stated that she had taken the tablet on her own,
and was not forced by the petitioners. Therefore, the dispute
between the parties arises out of marital discord, however,
given a criminal texture so as to harass the petitioners-herein.
8. The respondent No.2 though served with notice has
not chosen to appear in person or through her counsel.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent-State submits that the allegations made in the
complaint clearly discloses the commission of the offences
alleged against the petitioners, and the veracity of the
allegations can be considered at the time of trial, and same
cannot be gone into in this petition.
10. Considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties.
11. Marriage of the petitioner-accused No.1 with the
defacto-complainant was solemnized on 27.1.2019. It is
alleged that on 16.7.2019, petitioners forced the defacto
NC: 2023:KHC:43397
complainant to consume tablets. Perusal of the communication
dated 4.3.2020 issued by the government hospital, Arasikere,
to the Investigating Officer indicated that, the defacto
complainant had taken paracetamol and she was treated as in-
patient and was medically examined on 18.7.2019 and was
discharged from the hospital and taken to her parental home.
12. The communication issued by the hospital clearly
establishes that the allegation that the petitioners forced the
defacto complainant to consume tablet is without any
substance, and the FIR was lodged after the accused No.1-
petitioner issued notice dated 27.10.2019 calling upon the
defacto-complainant to resume conjugal rights. Instead, the
defacto-complainant lodged the FIR, and in the proceedings
under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the defacto complainant has
specifically admitted in examination-in-chief that, on 16.7.2019
she had consumed the tablets on her own to commit suicide
due to which she became unconscious and upon regaining the
conscious, she was in the Arisikere Government hospital and
thereafter her parents took her to parental home.
13. Except omnibus and general allegations, there is no
specific allegation against the petitioners-accused Nos.4 to 8 as
to how, and in what manner each of the said accused subjected
the complainant to cruelty mentally and physically.
14. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar
@ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 162 at para No.18 has held as follows:
NC: 2023:KHC:43397
"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."
15. The second respondent has not offered plausible
explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. v. M.
Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 has held
as follows:
"30. Time and again, the object and importance of
prompt lodging of the first information report has been
highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information
report, more often than not, results in embellishment
and exaggeration, which is a creature of an
afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of
the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the
introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated
account of the incident or a concocted story as a result
of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in,
casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is
essential that the delay in lodging the report should be
satisfactorily explained."
16. In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation
of the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners-accused
NC: 2023:KHC:43397
Nos.2 to 4 will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I
pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.150/2020
pending on the file of the of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Court,
Turuvekere, Tumkur District for the offences punishable under
Sections 498(A), 504, 506, 323, r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, insofar it relates to the
petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 is hereby quashed.
The learned Sessions Judge, to proceed against accused
No.1 in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of
the observations made in this order and, the observation if any,
is only for the purpose of the present petition.
iv) All contentions are kept open.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
