Allowed

C K Ansar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Apr 2023CRL.P/1544/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act pending against petitioners. The court accepted counsel submission that the deceased complainant and victim have no other witnesses, and the victim's daughter stated no interest in pursuing the case.

What did the court decide?

The prosecution of petitioners in C.C.No.810/1998 is quashed and petitioners are set free. Pending I.A. is dismissed.

C K Ansar Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 1544 of 2020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1544 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

C.K. ANSAR SON OF IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶9

V. JAMEELA WIFE OF ABUBAKAR AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

¶10

KASIM S/O LATE MOIDEEN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

¶11

ALL ARE RESIDING AT SAHIDA MANZIL, AJ-MANAR, MANNAYAD, NITTURU POST, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA STATE - 670 105.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SIJI MALAYIL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GANGAMMAGUDI POLICE STATION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

K.V. ABUBAKAR S/O LATE A.V. USMAN, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, SIDDARTHNAGAR, JALAHALLI WEST BENGALURU - 560 013

¶18

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KRISHNAKUMAR K.K., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 1544 of 2020

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.810/1998 (CRIME NO.37/1998) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498-A OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU LODGED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1, 3 AND 4.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners have challenged the charge-sheet filed by the respondent No.1 on the report of the deceased - respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is now pending trial in C.C.No.810/1998 (Crime No.37/1998) on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶25

When this petition was listed for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted that the complainant/father-in-law of the accused No.1 has expired and the victim/wife of the accused No.1 has also expired. He therefore, submitted that no useful purpose would be served in pursuing the prosecution, as there are no other witnesses who

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 1544 of 2020

¶28

could speak about the alleged cruelty as well as the alleged demand for dowry.

¶29

The daughter of the victim - Ashmina K.P., who has joined the proceeding of the Court through video conference submits that she is not interested to pursue the case against the accused.

¶30

In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed. Consequently, the prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.810/1998 (Crime No.37/1998) pending trial on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is quashed. The petitioners are set free.

¶31

In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.A., if any, does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

PMR

C K Ansar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C K Ansar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gayathri Shivaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Manish Kumar Jain Vs Swati Shrivastava Jain

Sri Abdul Khuddus Vs State of Karnataka

R Shashanka Vs the State of Karnataka

Gopi Phanikumar Vs Hemalekha. B

Sri Vignesh Prabhu Vs State of Karnataka