Partly allowed

Zakir Hussain @ Wajid Ahmed v. Bibi Ayesha

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2021CRL.P/8637/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the criminal trial proceedings against Petitioners 2 to 20 (family members) in a case involving IPC offences. It held that the chargesheet contained no overt acts against them, while allegations were primarily against the husband, and continuing their trial would cause unnecessary harassment.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Proceedings PCR No.10629/2018 (C.C.No.2498/2021) quashed against Petitioners 2 to 20; trial continues against Petitioner 1.

Zakir Hussain @ Wajid Ahmed Vs Bibi Ayesha — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8637 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ZAKIR HUSSAIN @ WAJID AHMED S/O ABDUL MAJEED P.K., AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.53 7^TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶9

FARHANA BEGUM

¶10

W/O ZAKIR HUSSIAN @ WAJID AHMED AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO.53 7^TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶11

3. NAVSHEEN

¶12

D/O ZAKIR HUSSIN @ WAJID AHMED AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.53 7^TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶13

¶14

FAIZAH S/O ZAKIR HUSSIN @ WAJID AHMED AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT NO.53, 7^TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶15

FARHATH W/O LATE B.E. ABDUL JABBAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶16

TALATH W/O MD. SHAFIULLA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶17

RAHAMATH W/O ADUL HADI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT 9^TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶18

KHURRATH W/O SUHAIL AHMED AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT 9^TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045

¶19

¶20

SIKANDAR S/O ABDUL JABBER AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶21

MAKHTIYAR W/O SIKANDAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶22

P.J. MAZHAR S/O LATE B.E. ABDUL JABBER AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶23

TASLEEM W/O MD. ALEEM AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶24

TASEEN

¶25

W/O MD. WASEEM AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶26

¶27

JABEENA COUSIN OF ZAKIR HUSSAIN WIFE OF NOT KNOWN TO THE COMPLAINANT AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶28

MAJID S/O ABDUL MAJID AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST, K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶29

SAJID S/O ABDUL MAJID AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶30

SHAMA W/O MAJID AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST, K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶31

SAMEERA W/O SAJID AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT P & T COLONY ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶32

¶33

NAVEEDA D/O GAIBAN KHAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT RAJU COLONY OPP. ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶34

SHAMA W/O BASHA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT RAJU COLONY OPP. ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BENGALURU-560 045.

¶35

... PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SMT. SUNITHA H. SINGH, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

BIBI AYESHA NO.14, RAJU COLONY OPP ARABIC COLLEGE POST K.G. HALLI BANGALORE - 45.

¶39

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY WOMEN POLICE STATION EAST RANGE BANGALORE-560 051

¶40

... RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. V.J. BENJAMINE, ADVOCATE FOR R1(ABSENT) SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R2 (PH) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR

¶42

¶43

NO.10629/2018 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ACMM, AT BANGALORE.

¶44

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

¶45

ORDER

¶46

There was no representation for the petitioner on 11.11.2021 and 16.11.2021.

¶47

Heard Smt.Sunitha H.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.R.D.Renukaradhya, learned High Court Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.2.

¶48

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶49

The petitioners are Accused Nos.1 to 20 in proceedings in C.C.No.2498/2021 arising out of PCR No.10629/2018 registered by the 1^st respondent-complainant. 1^st respondent is the first wife of the 1^st Accused/Petitioner No.1. Rest of the accused are all family members of the husband of the 1^st respondent, i.e., Accused No.1. The relationship of the accused is as follows:

¶50

¶51

1^st Accused is the husband of the complainant and the 2^nd

¶52

Accused is the first wife of the 1^st Accused. The 3^rd and 4^th Accused are the son and daughter of the 1^st and 2^nd Accused. The Accused Nos.5 to 8 are the sisters of the 1^st Accused and Accused Nos.9 to 20 are the relatives of the Accused Nos.1 and 2. The Accused No.10 is the wife of Accused No.9 and the Accused No.11 is the son of the Accused No.5 and the Accused Nos.12 and 13 are the daughters of Accused No.5. Accused No.14 is the cousin of 1^st Accused and Accused No.15 is the brother of the 1^st Accused. The Accused Nos.15 and 16 are the husband and wife. Accused No.18 is the wife of the Accused No.16 and Accused Nos.19 and 20 are the relatives of the Accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶53

Petitioner No.1-1^st Accused and Respondent No.1 got

¶54

married on 15.11.2007 and out of the wedlock, have also a child. It is after certain years of the marriage, the relationship between 1^st respondent and the 1^st petitioner turned sour. The reason for such problem in the relationship was attributed to the

¶55

¶56

1^st wife of the 1^st petitioner, which the 2^nd wife, i.e., 1^st respondent did not tolerate. This resulted in certain legal proceedings instituted by the 1^st respondent against the petitioner in P.C.R.No.52949/2014. The said case appears to have been dismissed by the competent Court for its nonprosecution. During the pendency of which, it transpires that the family members of the petitioner and 1^st respondent entered into an understanding on 25^th June 2012 which was slightly before the registration of the first private complaint by the 1^st respondent. Certain other proceedings also with regard to the custody of the child is pending before the competent court between the 1^st respondent and the 1^st accused-husband. The present petition arises out of a private complaint registered subsequently in P.C.R.No.10629/2018 which is now C.C.No.2498/2021.

¶57

Since the issue springs from the complaint which is germane to refer to the complaint whether the reference is made to every other accused in the said complaint for the offences

¶58

¶59

alleged as punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 419 and 498(A) read with Section 34 of IPC. The primary allegation in the complaint is against the Accused No.1-husband. Passing references are made to other members of the family in the complaint. No overt-act is attributed to any other accused in the complaint. At Paragraph 3 of the complaint, the relationship is narrated. Rest of the portion of the complaint completely relates to the 1^st accused and the 1^st wife. Complaint is against Accused No.1 who used to visit the house of Accused No.2 who is the 1^st wife of the Accused No.1. But there are grave instances of harassment meted out by the Accused No.1husband and there are no instances of any harassment meted out to the complainant by other members of the family. All the other members of the family are arraigned as Accused Nos.2 to 20 in the proceedings and all of them in unison have threatened the complainant. The chargesheet filed by the Police after investigation reads as follows:

¶60

¶61

"D¥ÁzÀ£É CxÀªÁ ªÀiÁ»w ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C¥ÀgÁzsÀzÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¶62

PÀ®AB- 498(J), 504, 506, 323, 417 gÉ/« 34, L¦¹ 03 & 04 D¥sï r¦ DPïÖ.

¶63

zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ DªÀgÀt 02 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ J1, J2, J5, J6, J7, J8, J14, J15, J19, J20 DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ UÀAqÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, J2 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, J5 jAzÀ J8 gÀ ªÀgÉV£À DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀjAiÀiÁgÁVzÀÄÝ, J14 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄ zÉÆqÀØ¥Àà£À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, J15 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, J19-20 DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦gÀªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:05.11.2007 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄfÃzï-

¶64

E-©¯Á¯ï C¯Áè-E-¸ÀÄ£Àßvï N dªÀiÁävï ©¯Á¯ï PÁA¥ÉèPïì, ©¯Á¯ï £ÀUÀgÀ, PÉ.f. ºÀ½î ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°è ªÀÄÄ¹èA ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀAzsÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è J1 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÁV ¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÁQë-4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 gÀªÀgÀÄ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦UÉ 40 UÁæA a£ÀßzÀ MqÀªÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 40 ¸Á«gÀ £ÀUÀzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV ¤Ãr J1 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄ ¨ÉÃrPÉAiÀÄAvÉ «ªÁºÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶65

«ªÁºÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ PÉ.f. ºÀ½î ¤ªÁ¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄªÁUÉÎ, J1 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ

¶66

¶67

¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 5 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ£ÀUÉ F ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÃ J2 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, E§âgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀÌ½gÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ, F «µÀAiÀÄ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¢UÀâçªÉÄAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄ PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁzÀ J5, J6, J7, J8, J14, J15 ºÁUÀÆ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÜgÁzÀ J19 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J20 DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼É®ègÀÄ ¸ÉÃj F ªÉÆzÀ¯ÉÃ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦UÉ «ªÁºÀªÁVgÀÄªÀ «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß w½¸ÀzÉÃ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¥ÁàVzÉ JAzÀÄ PÀëªÀiÁ¥ÀuÉ PÉÃ½gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. »ÃUÉÃ, ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ J1 DgÉÆÃ¦UÉ ªÉÆzÀ®£É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ w½¸ÀzÉ JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ «ªÁºÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."

¶68

A perusal of the chargesheet would also indicate that

¶69

there are no allegations against the accused, i.e., the other petitioners in the case at hand. The chargesheet clearly indicates grave instances of torture of Accused No.1 on the complainant. Therefore, it is for the Petitioner No.1-Accused No.1 to come out clean in the trial and the trial cannot be interjected or quashed insofar as 1^st Accused is concerned.

¶70

Insofar as it pertains to other accused members of the family, the narration in the complaint does not indicate any offence or overt-act committed by any of the members of the

¶71

¶72

family which include the children of 16 years and 12 years of the accused herein. Therefore, since the other family members are not alleged of any act in the chargesheet, permitting trial to continue against other family members would undoubtedly degenerate it to unnecessary harassment. The trial insofar as the other members of the family, i.e., Petitioner Nos.2 to

¶73

20/Accused Nos.2 to 20 is concerned, stands quashed.

¶74

Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

bnv*

Zakir Hussain @ Wajid Ahmed v. Bibi Ayesha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakir Hussain @ Wajid Ahmed v. Bibi Ayesha

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

Sri Harish K L Vs the District Electoral Officer

Shivananda. H. S. Vs Vidyashree H. E.

Sri S v Ramesh Vs Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board

Sri. Dr. Badekil Venkataramana Bhat Vs Sri N.S. Vadiraj

Venkata Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Wipro Limited Vs State Represented by