Allowed

Adumkarim Rijvi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2023CRL.P/100805/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench allowed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., quashing FIR and proceedings against petitioners. The court held parents could not be implicated in Section 376 IPC as the son acted independently, and no specific offences were charged against them for Sections 504/506.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; FIR in Crime No.42/2019 and proceedings in C.C. No.1245/2019 quashed as far as the petitioners are concerned.

Adumkarim Rijvi Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8012 CRL.P No. 100805 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100805 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ABDUMKARIM RIJVI S/O BILAL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER, R/O: ILKAL, ALAMPUR PET, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

¶10

SHABNAM ABDULKARIM RIJVI, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: ILKAL, ALAMPUR PET, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALOT.

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL & SRI. VYAS DESAI, ADVS.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶15

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Date: 2023.08.04 10:51:49 +0530

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD, THROUGH ILKAL POLICE STATION.

¶17

NIHADBEGUM ABUBAKR KURKURI, AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: ILKAL, ALAMPUR PET, TQ: HUNGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT-583607.

¶18

… RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH FIR CRIME NO.42/2019 DATED 25/04/2019 BY ILKAL P.S. FOR OFFENCES U/S 506, 504, 376 R/W 34 OF IPC WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS/A2 & A3 AND ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8012 CRL.P No. 100805 of 2020

¶22

CHARGESHEET FOR OFFENCES U/S 504, 506, 376(2)(n), 34 OF IPC OF FIR CRIME NO.42/2019 DATED 25/04/2019 BY ILKAL P.S.FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S IN CONNECTION WITH FIR CRIME NO.42/2019 DATED 25/04/2019 REGISTERED BY ILKAL P.S. FOR OFFENCES U/S 504, 506, 376(2)(n) R/W 34 OF IPC WITH RESPECT TO THE PETITIONERS / A2 & A3.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No.1245/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (the ‘IPC’, for short).

¶26

Heard Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. V.S. Kalasurmath, learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2, though served, remained

¶27

unrepresented.

¶28

The facts in brief, germane are as under:

¶29

The petitioners are the parents of accused No.1. 2^nd respondent is the complainant. The complainant had relationship with accused No.1-son of the

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8012 CRL.P No. 100805 of 2020

¶31

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3. It is the allegation in the complaint that accused No.1, on promise of marriage, had physical relationship with the complainant and has later on breached such promise of marriage. While registering the crime, the complainant narrates that the parents of accused No.1 have not co-operated with marriage and therefore the offences are alleged against them as well. The Police after investigation filed charge-sheet. The filing of the charge-sheet is what drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶32

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶33

would contend that the petitioners are the parents of accused No.1, who have nothing to do with the relationship between the complainant and accused No.1, even if he is their son. The offence under Section 376 of IPC cannot be laid against the petitioners. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8012 CRL.P No. 100805 of 2020

¶35

6. Learned Government Pleader would seek to

¶36

refute the submissions of the learned counsel to contend that the charge-sheet has been filed after investigation and therefore, further proceedings should be permitted to continue. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶37

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶38

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and I have perused the material on record.

¶39

The aforesaid facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the son of the petitioners and second respondent is again a matter of narration in the complaint.

¶40

The allegation is for the offence punishable under Section 376, 504 and 506 of IPC. If the offence are one punishable under Section 376, 504 and 506 of IPC, the parents of accused No.1 cannot be said to be involved in the offence against the 2^nd respondent-complainant. Even the charge-sheet does not narrate any offences against the petitioners, for them, to be hauled in the web of crime. On this ground, the offences under Section 376(2)(n) i.e.

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8012 CRL.P No. 100805 of 2020

¶42

laid against accused No.1 cannot be laid against the petitioners. The petitioner deserves to succeed qua Section 376 of IPC.

¶43

Even other offences under Section 504 and 506 is concerned, a perusal at the summary of the chargesheet would not indicate any offences against the petitioners except a bald statement that the petitioners have hurled abuses when the complainant comes to narrate the relationship between herself and the son of the petitioners. This can hardly mean to be an offence under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of process of law and results in miscarriage of justice.

¶44

For the aforesaid reasons, the following

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8012 CRL.P No. 100805 of 2020

¶48

(ii) FIR in Crime No.42/2019 registered by the

¶49

Hungunda Police Station and the proceedings in C.C. No.1245/2019 so far as the petitioners are concerned are quashed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

kmv

¶52

Ct:Bck

Adumkarim Rijvi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adumkarim Rijvi 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

Vinayak G Hebbar Vs the State of Karnataka

M a Sajeed Nawaz S/O. Abdul Hai Vs Althaf Ahamad S/O. Manjoor Ali Khaji Khatheeb

Dr. Sharanabassappa v. Gudli Vs the Government of Karnataka

Krishnaram Manaram Patel Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Sohail S/O Mohammed Yusoof Vs State of Karnataka

Muzammil S/O Nazer Vs State of Karnataka