Dismissed

Sri Amjad Mohammad Shafi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Aug 2021CRL.P/296/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the accused petitioners sought quashing of proceedings for offences under Sections 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, citing witness inconsistencies. The court held that such inconsistencies are matters for trial evidence and not grounds for quashing, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

None. Petition seeking quashing of criminal proceedings is dismissed.

Sri Amjad Mohammad Shafi Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 05^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.296 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Sri Amjad Mohammad Shafi Ballary (Ballary A.M) S/o Late Mohammed Shafi, Suleman Sab Ballary, Aged about 36 years,

¶9

Raziya Begaum, W/o Late Mohammed Shafi, Sulemansab Ballary, Aged about 66 years,

¶10

Both are R/at No.196/11, 7^th ‘C’ Cross, Venkatapura, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560034.

¶11

…Petitioners

¶12

(By Sri Amjad Mohammed Shafi Ballary, Party-in-Person)

¶13

AND

¶14

State of Karnataka Women Police Station, Chitradurga -577501 Rep. by the Public Prosecutor,

¶15

¶16

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru-560001.

¶17

Smt. Syeda Nahida Kauser W/o Amjad Mohammad, Aged about 33 years, C/o Mohammed Noorulla, C/o Contrat Wajeed Sab Nehrunagar, 4^th Cross, Chitradurga – 577501.

¶18

…Respondents

¶19

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1, Sri N.Srinivas, Advocate for R2)

¶20

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.842/2020 on the file of 1^st Additional Senior Civil Judge at Chitradurga for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and etc.,

¶21

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day through video conferencing , the Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the first petitioner-Amjad Mohammed Shafi,

¶24

who appeared through online and the learned High Court

¶25

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and the

¶26

counsel for respondent No.2.

¶27

¶28

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners being accused No.1 and 2 in C.C.No.482/2020 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, have sought quashing of the said proceedings. They are facing trial in connection with the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶29

The first petitioner tries to makeout a ground by referring to the complaint made by the second respondent and statements of witnesses. According to him, there are inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses. What he submits is that he has not received any dowry and that the false allegations are made against him. Unnecessarily cases are filed against him to mount pressure on him to arrive at a settlement.

¶30

¶31

With regard to the grounds urged by the first

¶32

petitioner, it is to be stated that if there are inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses, that cannot be considered now while considering a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is a matter of evidence upon which the trial Court is expected to apply its mind. The ground that can be taken during cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, cannot be considered for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., in order to quash the proceedings. Therefore I find no merit in this petition. It is dismissed .

¶33

Kmv/-

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Amjad Mohammad Shafi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Amjad Mohammad Shafi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A R Chandrakanth Vs Sri G Baloo

Mr. D. Anthony Raj Vs the Station House Officer

Mr Jai Prakash Reddy M Vs State of Karnataka

Deepesh @ Deepu Vs State of Karnataka

Raghu N Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivaraj Vs a. Rangaswamy