Allowed

J P Nasir v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023CRL.P/4690/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings against the petitioner for offences under Dowry Prohibition and IPC. The Court relied on a parallel order quashing charges for the same complaint and the acquittal of other co-accused.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in WPC No.30/2013 (C.C.No.607/2005) are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner/accused No.1.

J P Nasir Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 4690 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4690 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

J P NASIR S/O J P MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT TAVAKKAL MANZIL VIKAS NAGARA KANNIKMBLA, KAIKAMBA MANGALURU TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 211.

¶9

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION MANGALURU, D.K.DISTRICT REP BY THE S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

SMT RAZIA D/O ABDUL AZEEZ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT RAJA ROADLINES OPP: TO CORPORATION BANK MUKKA POST, MANGALURU TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 211.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. H.PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 4690 of 2017

¶19

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN WPC.NO.30/2013 (C.C.NO.607/2005) (CR.NO.18/2001) OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, MANGALURU, D.K. DIST. ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C.-II, MANGALURU, D.K.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioner/accused No.1 has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, alleging that the marriage of the de-facto complainant was solemnized with accused No.1 on 27.04.1998, and at the time of marriage, accused has received gold articles and also dowry. After marriage all the accused persons have subjected the complainant with cruelty, harassment and demanded further dowry, and also insulted her with filthy language, and thrown her out from the matrimonial home. It was further alleged that, the accused threatened to kill by pouring kerosene on her. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate of the aforesaid offence is impugned in this petition by petitioner/accused No.1.

¶23

3 - CRL.P No. 4690 of 2017

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.1 submits that, there is no specific allegation as against accused No.1, and there were specific allegations as against accused Nos.2 to 4, and trial Court after examining the evidence on record has acquitted the said accused for the aforesaid offences. He further submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4485/2017 has quashed the proceedings as against accused No.5, against whom, similar allegations were made. Hence, on the ground of parity, impugned proceedings may be quashed.

¶25

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that charge sheet material discloses that there are specific allegations against accused No.1, and allegations against accused Nos.2 to 4 are independent and different. Hence, petitioner/accused No.1 does not stand on the same footing as that of accused Nos.2 to 4. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

Learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State would reiterate the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 4690 of 2017

¶29

I have examined the submissions made by the

¶30

learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

The trial was split up against accused Nos.2 to 5, and the trial Court, after examining the materials on record, acquitted accused Nos.2 to 4 stating that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the said persons beyond reasonable doubt. There are no material placed before this Court that, the prosecution want to rely upon the another evidence, otherwise already relied upon by the trial Judge while acquitting the other co-accused. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.4485/2017 against whom similar charges were made has quashed the impugned proceedings as against accused No.5 by relying upon the judgment passed by the trial Court acquitting accused Nos.2 to 4. Hence, impugned proceedings as against petitioner/accused No.1 also requires to be quashed.

¶32

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 4690 of 2017

¶37

The impugned proceedings in WPC.No.30/2013 (C.C.No.607/2005) (CR.No.18/2001), on the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru, D.K., insofar it relates to petitioner/accused No.1 is quashed.

¶38

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration in view of the disposal of the main matter.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

GPG

J P Nasir v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J P Nasir 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri G P Mallikarjuna Vs Smt G H Sudha

Sri K v Ramesh Babu Vs S Malini

Sri G.R Jagannath Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Dr. Madhukar G. Angur Vs the Chief Secretary

S Vishwanath Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Gowtam Gopal Rao Kodikal Vs Registrar