Allowed

Saleem Pasha Hafeez v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2022CRL.P/2942/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of trial proceedings against accused who are relatives of the complainant in a secular domestic violence case alleging specific cruelty. Court held that without specific allegations against these relatives and relying only on general charges, proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.12795/2014 against petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 8 are quashed.

Saleem Pasha Hafeez Vs State of Karnataka by — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2942 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SALEEM PASHA HAFEEZ S/O LATE ABDUL HAFEEZ AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R.AT ANCHINANAMANE KARE, NO.140, C.N.ROAD, SEEIGABAIG, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA-577301

¶9

ALEEM PASHA S/O LATE ABDUL HAFEEZ, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT PESHAMMA MOHALLA AHIRA MASIDHI, SHARADA NURSING HOME SIRA, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137

¶10

SMT.IRFANA W/O ALEEM PASHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT PESHAMMA MOHALLA, AHIRA MASIDHI, SHARADA NURSING HOME SIRA, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137

¶11

SMT.SAHEEN PARVEEN W/O AHMED, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT ANCHINANAMANE KARE,

¶12

¶13

NO.149, C.N.ROAD, SEEIGE BAGI, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA-577301

¶14

SMT.SHABEENA PARVEEN W/O RAFIQ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R.AT ANCHINANAMANE KARE, NO.149, C.N.ROAD, SEEIGABAIG, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA-577301

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI SUHAIB FAZEEL MADAR, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND :

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BY BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001

¶19

SMT.LATIFUNNISSA W/O SALEEM PASHA HAFEEZ, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT 135, 5TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, KASTURBANAGARA, BENGALURU-560026

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI ROHITH.B.J, HCGP FOR R1, SRI M.P.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEINGS IN C.C.NO.12795/2014 (CR.NO.279/2013) PENDING BEFORE THE III A.C.M.M. BANGALORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF

¶23

¶24

IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P.ACT FILED BY THE BYATARAYANAPURA POLICE IN CR.NO.279/2013.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 alleging that the complainant witness No.1 is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 to 8 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law's of CW-1 and she was subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically by the accused and also there was a demand to bring money from parental house for purchasing a site.

¶28

The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶29

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶31

Perusal of the charge sheet discloses that accused Nos.2 to 8 are the brother-in-law and sistersin-law's of CW-1 and they were not residing in the matrimonial home of CW-1 and accused No.1. Except omnibus and general allegations, there are no specific allegations or material produced along with the charge sheet as to how and in what manner CW-1 was subjected to cruelty by accused Nos.2 to 8 and also there was a demand to bring money for purchasing the site.

¶32

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 162 para 18 has held as follows:

¶33

"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

¶34

¶35

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 inlaws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

¶36

In the absence of any corroborative material

¶37

except for omnibus and general allegations made against accused Nos.2 to 8, the filing of the charge sheet against the said accused is without any substance. It would be an abuse of process of law if the petitioners are subjected to trial.

¶38

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶41

¶42

ii. The impugned proceedings in

¶43

C.C.No.12795/2014 pending on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar relates to petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 8 is hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Saleem Pasha Hafeez v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saleem Pasha Hafeez v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Bachegowda H M Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr P S Ayub @ Bomanahalli Babu Vs State of Karnataka

The India Cements Ltd. Vs Bescom

C Halappa Vs Gurudev B

Jan Willem Adriaan De Geus Vs State of Karnataka by