Quashed

Zaheeda Begam v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Jun 2022CRL.P/6799/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings against petitioner-accused No.2. Court found no specific allegations of cruelty or dowry demand against her in FIR or charge sheet material, rendering the filing without substance.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.26385/2015 pending on file of IA.C.M.M., Bangalore insofar it relates to petitioner-accused No.2 are quashed.

Zaheeda Begam Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6799/2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

ZAHEEDA BEGAM

¶8

W/O. LATE MR. E.S. BERLIE, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O. 305, S.V. LAYOUT, BASAVANAGAR MAIN ROAD, HOODI, BANGALORE-560 047.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY HEBBALA POLICE STATION, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

SMT. ASMA NAVEEN W/O. ABDUL WAHAAB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO.950, 13TH A CROSS, GANGABHAVANI LAYOUT, MANORAYANAPALYA, SULTANPALYA, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

¶16

(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FILING OF CHARGE SHEET AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS C.C.NO.26385/2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.

¶18

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

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Police after investigation submitted the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 498 (A) read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act alleging that the complainant is the legally wedded wife of the accused No.1 and accused No.2 petitioner herein is the mother-in-law and she was subjected to cruelty by accused No.1 and also there was a demand to bring dowry from her parental home by the accused No.1.

¶21

The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued

¶22

¶23

summons. Taking exception to the same, petitioner-accused No.2 is before this Court.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.2 submits that in the absence of any allegation that the complainant was subjected to cruelty by accused No.2 and also there was a demand by accused No.2 to bringing money from her parental home, the charge sheet filed against the petitioneraccused No.2 is without any substance.

¶25

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses the commission of the offence by the petitioneraccused No.2. Hence, he submits that filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.2 does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶27

Perusal of the FIR lodged by the second respondent and also the charge sheet material discloses that there is no

¶28

¶29

allegation against accused No.2 for having subjected the complainant to cruelty and also there was a demand made to bring money from her parental home, and in the absence of any allegations and material, the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused No.2 is without any substance.

¶30

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶31

The criminal petition is allowed

¶32

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.26385/2015 pending on the file of the 1st Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore insofar it relates to petitioner-accused No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

HR

Zaheeda Begam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zaheeda Begam 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

Sri v Shashidhar Vs State of Karnataka by Yelahanka

Sri B C Kemapaiah Vs State of Karnataka

D Ramachandra Vs M/S Max Worth Realty India Ltd.

Dr Prabhakar Bhat Kalladka Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Shrikanth Ravindra Vs Smt. Padarathy S. Sowmya

Mohammed Zakir Vs Smt Shabana