Karnataka High Court

Rehamath Ali S S/O Late Baba Pakruddin ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2023

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                      -1-
                                                            NC: 2023:KHC-D:14080
                                                             CRL.P No. 101467 of 2022




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                                    BEFORE

                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                                  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101467 OF 2022

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.     REHAMATH ALI S. S/O LATE BABA PAKRUDDIN SAB,
                             AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. P.D. HALLI,
                             TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583111.

                      2.     RABIYABEE W/O LATE BABA PAKRUDDIN SAB,
                             AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
                             R/O. P.D. HALLI TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583111.

                      3.     HABIBULLA S/O LATE BABA PAKRUDDIN SAB,
                             AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. P.D. HALLI,
                             TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583111.

                      4.     NOOR ALI S. S/O LATE BABA PAKRUDDIN SAB,
                             AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. P.D. HALLI,
                             TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583111.

                      5.     IDAYATH ALI S/O LATE BABA PAKRUDDIN SAB,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI                   AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. P.D. HALLI,
                             TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583111.
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
KANKUPPI
Date: 2023.12.06
13:25:07 +0530
                      6.     ABDULMUNAF YALPI S/O ABDUL NABHISAB YALPI,
                             AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMAN,
                             R/O. KAMPLI, TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583132.

                      7.     HALIMA W/O MAHAMMED JAMEER,
                             AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
                             R/O. NEAR TIPPU CIRCLE, TQ. SIRUGUPPA,
                             DIST. BALLARI-583121.

                             CORRECT ADDRESS:
                             HALIMA W/O SHAIK ROSHAN JAMEER,
                             R/O. 1-50-A- RUDRAM PET,
                             ANANTHAPUR DIST.-515004,
                             ANDHARA PRADESH.
                              -2-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC-D:14080
                                    CRL.P No. 101467 of 2022




8.   IDRIS S/O BYLAVALE GANISAB,
     AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. BROKER,
     R/O. NEAR TIPPU CIRCLE, TQ. SIRUGUPPA,
     DIST. BALLARI-583111.

9.   MAQBUL W/O IDRIS,
     AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O. NEAR TIPPU CIRCLE, TQ. SIRUGUPPA,
     DIST. BALLARI-583121.

10. USMAN S/O IDRIS,
    AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. MECHANIC,
    R/O. NEAR TIPPU CIRCLE,
    TQ. SIRUGUPPA,
    DIST. BALLARI-583121.
                                               ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     (SIRUGUPPA POLICE STATION, BALLARI),
     R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     BENCH AT DHARWAD-580011.

2.   SMT. RESHMA BK W/O REHAMATH S.,
     AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE
     R/O. 23RD WARD, SIRUGUPPA TOWN,
     TQ. SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BALLARI-583111.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI. PARASHURAM C. SAJJANAR &
 SRI. VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATES FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR NO.211/2021 (SIRUGUPPA
POLICE STATION), THE CHARGE SHEET AND ORDER OF TAKING
COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS DATED 09.03.2022
PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRUGUPPA IN C.C.NO.
894/2022 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/A.1 TO A.10 FOR THE
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 498-A, 323, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC AND
U/SEC. 3, 4 OF D.P.ACT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT THERETO IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
                             -3-
                                  NC: 2023:KHC-D:14080
                                       CRL.P No. 101467 of 2022




    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 10 sought quashing of

the charge sheet, order of taking cognizance and issuance

of process date 09.03.2023 passed in C.C.No.894/2022

and further proceedings in pursuant thereto.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State

and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. Respondent No.2 has filed first information

report on 22.09.2021 and same came to be registered in

Crime No.211/2021 of Siruguppa P.S. for the offences

punishable under Sections 109, 498(A), 323, 504, read

with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter

referred to as the "IPC", for brevity) and Sections 3 and 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred to as the

"D.P.Act", for brevity). In the FIR petitioners have been

arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 10. After completing

investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14080

petitioners for the offence under Sections 109, 498(A),

323, 504, read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3

and 4 of the D.P.Act. On the basis of the said charge

sheet, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued

process against the petitioners in C.C.No.894/2022 by

order dated 09.03.2022. Petitioner sought for quashing

the said proceedings in C.C.No.894/2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

contend that the respondent No.2 has left matrimonial

house on 07.05.2020 and went to her parents house and

she did not return and therefore, her husband got issued

legal notice dated 03.09.2021 and sent by registered post

and same came to be served on her on 04.09.2021. In the

said notice, petitioner No.1-husband has asked the

respondent No.2 to join him to lead marital life. He further

contended that after receipt of said notice, the respondent

No.2 has filed false complainant against the petitioners on

22.09.2021. The allegations of assault etc as averred in

the complaint are on 18.10.2020 and prior to that date.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14080

He further submits that petitioner Nos.6 to 10 are residing

in different places. The proceedings initiated by

respondent No.2 against petitioners are abuse of process

of law. He places reliance on the decision of this Court

rendered in Criminal petition No.101147/2022 and

Criminal petition No.102016/2021 and decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @

SONAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND

OTHERS reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for

the respondent No.2, both would contended that on

perusal of averments of the complaint and statement of

the witnesses, there is clear allegation against the

petitioners demanding dowry and assaulting the

respondent No.2 and throwing out her from the house and

also abused and assaulted respondent No.2 by her

husband on 18.10.2020 in the house of her parents. The

charge sheet material shows prima facie case against the

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14080

petitioners for the offences alleged against them. There

are no grounds for quashing the proceedings. With this,

they prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties, this Court has perused the charge sheet material

and documents produced by the learned counsel for the

petitioners.

7. The marriage of the respondent No.2 and

petitioner No.1 has taken place on 15.01.2017. Out of

marriage, they have two sons. As per the averments of

the complaint, dowry has been given in the form of

ornaments and cash at the time of marriage. As per the

averments of the complaint, petitioners have demanded

Rs.10 lakh for commencement of the footwear business by

the husband of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 was

residing in her parents house since 07.05.2020. As per the

averments of complaint, on 18.10.2020 the accused

Nos.1, 8 to 10 came to the house of parents of the

respondent No.2 and abused her and her husband-accused

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14080

No.1 assaulted on her cheek and demanded dowry of

Rs.10 lakh. Even though the said alleged incident has

taken place on 18.10.2020, no action has been initiated

either by respondent No.2 or by her family members

against the petitioners. The respondent No.2 kept quiet till

she received legal notice got issued by her husband-

petitioner/accused No.1 dated 03.09.2021. In the said

notice, the respondent No.2 called upon to join

matrimonial home to lead marital life. The said notice has

been sent to respondent No.2 by registered post on

03.09.2021 and it has been served on 04.09.2021. It is

only after receipt of said notice, the complaint came to be

filed by respondent No.02 on 22.09.2021. There is no

incident in between 18.10.2020 and 22.09.2021. It

appears that only as an after thought the respondent No.2

has filed complaint after receipt of said legal notice, not

only against her husband but also against his family

members and relatives. Even though they are residing in

different places. In the averments of the complaint there is

no mention of respondent No.2 receiving legal notice got

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14080

issued by her husband-petitioner No.1 dated 03.09.2021

even though it is served on her prior to filing of said

complaint.

8. As per the averment of the complaint and

statement of charge sheet witnesses, petitioners alleged to

have demanded Rs.10 lakh for commencement of footwear

business of petitioner/accused No.1. In order to attract

Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act, there should be allegation of

petitioners should have demanded dowry in connection

with the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2.

The said alleged demand of money is for the business of

petitioner No.1 and that too after 3 years of marriage

would not construe offence punishable under Sections 3

and 4 of D.P.Act. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court,

considering the similar case has quashed the proceedings

in Criminal Petition No.102016/2021 decided on

04.03.2022.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14080

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in KAHKASHAN

KAUSAR @ SONAM case stated (supra) has observed in

para 18 as under :

"18. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC 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."

10. The filing of the complaint by respondent No.2,

after receipt of legal notice got issued by her husband-

petitioner No.1 regarding the acts taken place one year

prior to receipt of the said notice. Filing of the said

complaint is clear abuse of process of law. Therefore, the

proceedings initiated against the petitioners requires to be

quashed. In the result, the following: