Dismissed

Sri. Mohammed Shamsuddin Khan v. State by Koramangala

Karnataka HC1 Mar 2023CRL.P/2241/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a CRL.P under S.482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of criminal proceedings involving Sections 498A and 324 IPC. The court found meritless the submission that the matrimonial complaint was malicious or filed with malicious delay.

What did the court decide?

Petition filed under S.482 Cr.P.C praying for quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.10169/2016 is dismissed.

Sri. Mohammed Shamsuddin Khan Vs State by… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 2241 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2241 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMSUDDIN KHAN S/O LATE ABDUL SATTAR KHAN AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.24, 3RD STAGE, BDA AUSTIN TOWN VIVEK NAGAR BENGALURU-560 047.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR.C, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE BY KORAMANGALA POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE SPP OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE.

¶14

SMT. SYED UNNISA W/O. MOHAMMED SHAMSUDDIN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.104, 3RD CROSS, NEAR B D A COMPLEX, AUSTIN TOWN, BENGALURU-560 047.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SHIVANANDA METI, ADVOCTE FOR R2 SRI. SYED UMAN ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 2241 of 2017

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.10169/2016 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF 45th ACMM, BANGALORE.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the cognizance taken by the Court of 45th Additional, CMM, Bangalore (Henceforth be referred as 'Trial Court') for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 504, 506 of IPC in C.C.No.10169/2016.

¶23

The case of the prosecution was that CW-1 had lodged a complaint on 12.06.2015, that the petitioner herein was her husband and that due to some marital issues, the petitioner assaulted her on 11.06.2015 with a belt, which resulted in injuries. She alleged that she was treated at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore on 12.06.2015. Based on the above, a crime No.354/2015 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 504, 506 of IPC. The Jurisdictional Police after investigating the offence had filed a charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued process to the accused and the same is challenged in this petition.

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 2241 of 2017

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no material collected by the prosecution to establish the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offences. He submits that the complaint is filed by the complainant only to extract money and nothing else. He also submitted that the offence was allegedly committed on 11.06.2015 at 8.00 p.m, while the complaint was registered on 12.06.2015 at 6.30 p.m. Therefore, there is a delay in lodging the complaint. He therefore prays that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner be set at naught.

¶27

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that, the complaint was lodged after respondent No.2 was treated at Bowring and Lady Curzon Hospital, Bangalore on 12.06.2015. He submitted that the complaint itself set out the reason for delay in lodging the complaint. He further submitted that since this was a matrimonial dispute, the delay in lodging the complaint could be due to various reasons such as intervention by the members of family for settlement of the dispute. He therefore submitted

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 2241 of 2017

¶30

that there is no ground made out by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings against him.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶32

The complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.2 clearly makes out all the requirements of an offence punishable under Sections 498A, 324, 504, 506 of IPC. The contention urged by the petitioner that the complaint was lodged only to extract money from the petitioner, is not well supported. Even otherwise since the petitioner did not dispute that respondent No.2 is his wife, the possibility of the complainant being exposed to marital cruelty cannot be ruled out. Therefore, there is no material placed on record to establish that the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 is malicious or is intended to harass him. The further contention of the petitioner that the complaint was lodged belatedly is also not sustainable since, the complaint herself mentioned in the complaint that after obtaining treatment at Bowring and Lady

¶33

¶34

CRL.P No. 2241 of 2017

¶35

Curzon Hospital, Bangalore, she returned back and lodged a complaint belatedly.

¶36

In that view of the matter, there is no merit in this

¶37

petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed .

¶38

Any observations made in this petition shall not impact or

¶39

affect the trial of the case on merits.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sri. Mohammed Shamsuddin Khan v. State by Koramangala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mohammed Shamsuddin Khan v. State by Koramangala

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

Dr Manjunatha Y C Vs State by Gulpet Police Station

Smt. Saraswathamma Vs Shri R. Ramachandra

Sri K C Yathish Kumar Vs Anti Corruption Bureau

Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Ranjani @ Parvathamma Vs Sri K R Manjunatha

M/S. Pramila Santhosh Land Developers and Builders Vs State of Karnataka