Dismissed

Syed Akthar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2022CRL.P/5831/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka heard a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court held that guilt is a question for trial and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings against the petitioner was dismissed.

Syed Akthar Vs the State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5831 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SYED AKTHAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE SYED MOHAMAD R/O SHAZIYA MANZIL, 3^RD CROSS, BUDDANAGAR RML NAGARA SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

¶9

AND ALSO PRESENTLY, R/AT GRAND GANDHARVA APARTMENT, FLAT NO. E-013, E BLOCK, GROUND FLOOR, 1^ST MAIN, 18^TH CROSS, R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU.

¶10

... PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR.P, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY

¶15

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

HIGH COURT BUILDING

¶17

BANGALORE-01.

¶18

YASMIN AMEEN

¶19

AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶20

¶21

D/O SYED SUHAIL R/O 34, OPP AL-ANSAR MASJID, II PHASE, II^ND CROSS, RMC NAGAR, SHIVMOGGA-577 201.

¶22

...RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MOHAMMED INAYATHULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITITONER IN C.C.NO.13015/2019 (CR.NO.42/2019) PENDING ON THE FILE OF I/c II ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND XXIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU, CHARGE SHEETED BY BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT.

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The instant petition is filed against the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein in C.C.No.13015/2019 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The second respondent is the complainant and she is the daughter-in-law of the

¶28

¶29

petitioner herein. She has given a complaint against her husband and the petitioner herein. Petitioner has been arraigned as accused No.2 in the proceedings.

¶30

The case of the petitioner is that he never resided with his son and the second respondent and there was difference of opinion between her son and the second respondent and consequently, the second respondent has filed a false case against the petitioner and that all the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet are false and that he has not harassed the second respondent at any point of time nor he has demanded the dowry.

¶31

Learned Advocate for the second respondent is

¶32

absent.

¶33

Learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent submits that the allegations made in the charge sheet does constitute the offence alleged against the petitioner herein and whether he is guilty of the said allegations or not is a matter of trial and that this Court in

¶34

¶35

exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot interfere in the matter.

¶36

Perused the charge sheet. The allegations made in the charge sheet alleges that the petitioner herein has harassed the second respondent and has demanded dowry. Whether the petitioner is guilty of the offence alleged or not, is a matter of trial. This Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot decide as to the disputed questions of fact.

¶37

For the aforementioned reasons, the petition is hereby dismissed .

¶38

In view of dismissal of the main petition, interlocutory applications, if any do not survive for consideration and the same are hereby disposed of.

¶39

SD/JUDGE

¶40

VMB

Syed Akthar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Akthar v. the 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

Maruthi Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Khaleel Khan P Vs Sunil Kumar G C

Khaleel Khan P Vs Sri. Saddam Peer

Smt Shipra Tayal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shoib Vs State of Karnataka

Ere Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka