Dismissed

Noorjahan W/O Yaseen Dargah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2022CRL.P/101754/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioners accused of dowry harassment. The Court held that as a charge sheet had been filed after detailed investigation, a prima facie case was made out, and no interference was warranted at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. dismissed; proceedings against petitioners allowed to continue.

Noorjahan W/O Yaseen Dargah Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 101754 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101754 OF 2022 (482-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NOORJAHAN W/O YASEEN DARGAH, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, SHAKTI-NAGAR, BARA TANG MASJID, DARGAH ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586103.

¶10

MUSKAAN W/O KALEEMULLA LOHAR, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, KAHANZAADE ROAD,

¶11

TQ: SAVANUR-581118, DIST: HAVERI.

¶12

YASEEN DARGAH S/O BABU SAB DARGAH, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: TAXI DRIVER, SHAKTI-NAGAR, BARA TANG MASJID, DARGAH ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586103.

¶13

ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL

¶14

KALEEMULLA S/O MUNEER SAHAB LOHAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICES, KAHANZAADE ROAD,

¶15

TQ: SAVANUR-581118, DIST: HAVERI.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

Digitally signed byANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶18

(BY SRI. SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE POLICE SUPERINTENDENT DHARWAD, WOMEN P.S. HUBBALLI DHARWAD CIRCLE-580001, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶21

¶22

CRL.P No. 101754 of 2022

¶23

2. SMT.MUBINABANU

¶24

W/O MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN BELLARI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O.CHIDAMBAR NAGAR, HANGAL, TQ: HANGAL-581104, DIST.HAVERI.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1) (R2- NOTICE SERVED)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II COURT DHARWAD C.C.NO.531/2021 AND COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4, 5, 6, 7 IN P.S. CRIME NO.0039/2020 (HUBLI WOMEN PS) IPC (U/SEC-498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W 149) DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 (U/SEC.3 AND 4) IN REGISTERED WITH HUBLI P.S.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners, who are respectively arraigned as accused Nos.4 to 7 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in CC No.531/2021 of Hubli Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w. 149 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short “D.P. Act”).

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 101754 of 2022

¶33

It is the case of the petitioners that the marriage of accused No.1-Mohammad Husain Ballari and respondent No.2/complainant-Mubeenabanu, took place on 16.04.2018. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are the married sisters and petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are the elder and younger brother in laws of accused No.1. They never resided with him and the complainant. Petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are residing at Bijapur, almost 200 k.ms away from accused No.1 and complainant. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 4 are the residents of Savanur. Accused No.1 is employed outside the India. After two years of marriage respondent No.2/complainant filed a complaint against the petitioners and others making false allegations. A charge sheet is filed in C.C. No.530/2021, against which the present petition is filed.

¶34

During the course of the arguments learned counsel for petitioners submits that there is an inordinate delay of 2 years in filing the complaint. Without conducting preliminary enquiry as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 101754 of 2022

¶37

Pradesh and Others¹ ( Lalita Kumari’s case), Police have registered the case and filed the charge sheet. No specific allegations are made against the petitioners. In fact petitioner No.4 was not at all present in India when the alleged incident took place. Without issuing notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C, the investigating officer has mechanically conducted investigation. Only to drag all the members of the family to the Court, petitioners have been implicated. In fact complainant has initiated multiple proceedings under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and also sought for dissolution of marriage and it is a fit case to interfere under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, and prays to allow the petition.

¶38

Learned High Court Government Pleader argued and submitted that after conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed against all the accused persons, including the petitioners. The charge sheet makes out a prima-facie case and it is for the prosecution to prove the

¶39

1 (2014) 2 SCC 1

¶40

¶41

CRL.P No. 101754 of 2022

¶42

charges leveled against them at trial. In the light of primafacie material placed on record, at this stage no interference is warranted under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, and prays to reject the petition.

¶43

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

¶44

Accused No.1 is the husband, accused Nos.2

¶45

and 3 are the parents in law, accused Nos.4 and 5 are sister in laws and accused Nos.6 and 7 are the brother in laws of the complainant. The marriage of complaint and accused No.1 took place on 16.04.2018. It is definitely the case of prosecution that at the time of marriage, as per the demand of accused persons, jewelry weighing 18 tolas cash of Rs.1,00,000/- and house hold articles including silver articles worth of Rs.8,00,000/- were given and marriage was performed in a grand manner. However, in spite of it, the accused persons were not happy. Accused No.1 who was working at Bangalore and would not take her with him and left the complainant with parents. He put condition that if she want to stay with him, she should get

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 101754 of 2022

¶48

Rs.1,50,000/-. They were also angry for the reasons that a panchayat was convened at the instance of complaint. Even during the time when the complainant was carrying, she was harassed and ill-treated and they also assaulted her. It is alleged that even after complainant gave birth to a child, they did not came to see her. Based on the complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No.39/2020 and after conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed.

¶49

The main ground urged by the petitioners is that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are wife and husband and similarly petitioners Nos.2 and 4 are wife and husband and they are residing separately from the remaining accused and as such there was no occasion for them to harass or ill-treat the complainant. It is not the case of the prosecution that petitioners were always present at the house of the accused Nos.1 to 3. Whether they were also involved in commission of offence is a matter to be established during the trial and the burden is on the prosecution to establish the said fact. Having regard to the

¶50

¶51

CRL.P No. 101754 of 2022

¶52

fact that after conducting detailed investigation a charge sheet came to be filed against the petitioners it makes out prima-facie case. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶53

M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of

¶54

Maharashtra and Others² ( Neeharika’s Case), while examining FIR/ complainant quashing of which is sought the Court could not embark upon enquiry, as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/ Complaint. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. Having regard to the fact that charge sheet is filed, it is for the prosecution to establish the allegations against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Of course the accused i.e., petitioners would also opportunity to put forth their defense and disprove the case of the prosecution. For these reasons, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to grant the relief sought.

¶55