Allowed

D Mahammad v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2023CRL.P/3130/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash prosecution for Dowry Prohibition and IPC 498A offences. The petitioners argued duplicate prosecution under T.T. Antony. The court quashed proceedings in Bengaluru as investigation was already final in Ananthapur.

What did the court decide?

The pending prosecution in C.C.No.17772/2018 before I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for Sections 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is quashed.

D Mahammad Vs State of Karnataka by — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:45322 CRL.P No. 3130 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3130 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

D. MAHAMMAD S/O LATE HYDER VALI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.17/28, NEERUGANTI ANANTHAPUR , A.P

¶9

SMT. BANU BEE W/O. LATE HYDER VALI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, AWARDU, YENUMALIPALLI ANANTHAPURA - 515 134 ANDHRA PRADESH

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. RAMACHANDAR DESU, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

SMT. RANI S.N., W/O. MOHAMMED D., AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, R/AT NO.177, I MAIN, BHUVANESHWARINAGARA, SULTANPALYA, R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-32

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:45322 CRL.P No. 3130 of 2019

¶20

SRI. SHIVA REDDY T.N., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 (ABSENT))

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED FIRST ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTARATE BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.17772/2018 (CRIME NO.56/2018).

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched against them in C.C.No.17772/2018 (Cr.No.56/2018) pending trial before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short) and also Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶25

The respondent No.1 registered Cr.No.56/2018

¶26

for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, based on the information furnished by the respondent No.2. After investigation, a charge sheet was

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:45322 CRL.P No. 3130 of 2019

¶29

filed against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued process to the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition is filed.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the father of the respondent No.2 had also lodged a complaint before the police on 29.03.2018 at Ananthpur district and a case in Cr.No.141/2018 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 324 of IPC. He therefore, contends that the subsequent crime registered by the respondent No.1 on 01.04.2018 ought to have been treated as further information and must have been transferred to the police at Ananthpur district for investigation and a conclusive report. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case in Ananthpur district has already reached a final stage, and therefore, the instant proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 is a clear violation of the mandate of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others [(2001) 6 SCC 181]. He therefore, prays that

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:45322 CRL.P No. 3130 of 2019

¶32

the impugned prosecution launched against the petitioner be set at naught.

¶33

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has consistently remained absent.

¶34

The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand did admit that a parallel case was registered before the jurisdictional police at Ananthpur district and therefore, the instant case registered by the respondent No.1 ought to have been transferred to the police at Ananthpur district for a comprehensive investigation and a conclusive report.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid, having regard to the fact that prosecution of the petitioners is pending consideration before the Court in Ananthpur district, virtually

¶36

on the same set of facts, it is improper to expose the petitioners to an another prosecution, on the very same facts, at the instant of the respondent No.2.

¶37

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed and the impugned prosecution of the petitioners in

¶38

¶39

NC: 2023:KHC:45322 CRL.P No. 3130 of 2019

¶40

C.C.No.17772/2018 pending trial before the I Additional

¶41

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is quashed.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

D Mahammad v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D Mahammad v. State of Karnataka 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

Sri H C Mallarju Vs State of Karnataka

Sathish M.K. Vs State by Kunigal Ps

Sri. Sathish Kumar. N Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Shivanand Prabhu

K. H. Umashankar Vs Smt. R. Chandrakala

S Balaji Vs the State of Karnataka by