Allowed

Mr Mohammed Mushtaq G.K v. the Station of Karnataka Rep by

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022CRL.P/721/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A constitutional bench quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a husband and in-laws under IPC sections for harassment. The High Court of Karnataka noted the FIR's delayed filing, general allegations, failure to disclose a pending divorce suit, and concluded continuing the trial would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.26059/2018 quashed.

Mr Mohammed Mushtaq G.K Vs the Station of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.721 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

MR.MOHAMMED MUSHTAQ G K, S/O MR.KHADER HUSSAIN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶9

MRS.JAHANARA BEGUM, W/O KHADER HUSSAIN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶10

KHADER HUSSAIN SAHEB, S/O LATE HASAN AHMED SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT OVAIS HOUSE, NO.23/24, 1^ST MAIN , 1^ST CROSS, JAYANAGARA 1^ST BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 011.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. MALLANAGOUDA H, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND :

¶15

THE STATION OF KARNATAKA. REP BY R T NAGAR POLICE STATION, R T NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 001. REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶16

¶17

MRS. AYESHA BANU, D/O MR.NOOR SAB MOULANA SAHEB, W/O MR.MOHAMMED MUSTHAQ G K, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, NO.24/1, 1^ST CROSS, KOUSAR NAGAR, R T NAGAR POST, BANGALORE – 560 032.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. ROHITH B J, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.NAYEEM PASHA S,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.26059/2018 PENDING BEFORE LVI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The FIR was lodged by the second respondent

¶24

alleging that she is the legally wedded wife of petitioner-accused No.1 and their marriage was solemnized on 30.04.2009 and a son is born out of

¶25

the said wedlock. It is alleged that petitioner – accused No.2 and 3 are the parents-in- law. It is further alleged that after the marriage, the couple were residing at the matrimonial house at Bengaluru.

¶26

¶27

In the year 2013 they left to USA and continued their marital life and they returned back to India in 2015. It is further alleged that due to the harassment meted out to her, she left the matrimonial home in August 2015 and continued to live with her son at her parental house. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet for the offences punishable under sections 498(A), 323, 504 of IPC. 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.

¶28

I have examined the submission made by

¶29

learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

On perusal of the complaint, it is seen that

¶31

the second respondent left her marital home in August, 2015 due to the alleged harassment meted out to her by the petitioners – accused and continued

¶32

¶33

to live in her parental home. Thereafter she field a suit for dissolving her marriage with accused No.1 in June 2016 before the jurisdictional Court. The FIR was lodged by her with the first respondent- police on 24.01.2018 without disclosing the filing of the suit for divorce. There is no explanation whatsoever offered in the FIR that she has filed a suit for dissolving her marriage with petitioner - accused No.1. The FIR was lodged by the second respondent only after the petitioner – accused No.1 filed a private complaint for defamation against her bother and sister. The second respondent without disclosing the filing of the suit for divorce and also the filing of the private complaint by the petitioner - accused No.1 against her brother and sister lodged the FIR. Further Perusal of the FIR also indicates that there is no specific allegation as to how and in what manner she was subjected to cruelty by each of the accused except making omnibus and general allegations.

¶34

¶35

4. The Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Madhusudan Rao¹ at para 30

¶36

has held as follows:

¶37

“30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.”

¶38

5. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of

¶39

the considered view that the charge sheet is filed on the basis of omnibus and general allegations and

¶40

1 (2008)15 SCC 582

¶41

¶42

there is no plausible explanation offered for the delay in lodging the FIR and also without disclosing the fact that the suit was filed for divorce against petitioneraccused No.1, hence continuation of the criminal proceedings will be abuse of process of law.

¶43

Accordingly, I pass the following:-

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶46

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.NO.

¶47

26059/2018 pending on the file of LVIth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bangalore, is hereby quashed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Bsv

Mr Mohammed Mushtaq G.K v. the Station of Karnataka Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mohammed Mushtaq G.K v. the Station of Karnataka Rep 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

J a Ahmed Vs State by

Dr Gurukanth Rao N Vs Dr Ranjeetha Shenoy

Manjunatha Vs State by Sub Inspector of Police

Smt. Rekha Shetty Vs State by Puttur Town Police

Sri Mahantesha Vs the State by

Lokesh Vs the State of Karnataka