Partly allowed

Mrs. Zaibunnisa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Dec 2024CRL.P/2023/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a dowry harassment case filed by a wife against her husband and in-laws, the High Court partly allowed the Section 482 CrPC petition: proceedings against accused No.4 (brother-in-law) were quashed as ominous and lacking specific allegations, while accused Nos.2 and 3, against whom specific allegations existed, were directed to face trial.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No.21817/2021 against accused No.4 (Naveed Pasha) quashed; petition dismissed for accused Nos.2 and 3.

Mrs. Zaibunnisa Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:51932 CRL.P No. 2023 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2023 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. ZAIBUNNISA W/O LATE ABDUL RAUF, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT: 27/10, 2^ND CROSS, OLD FUNCTION MOHALLA COTTONPET, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 053.

¶9

MRS. YASEEN @ YASEEN SULTANA D/O LATE ABDUL RAUF, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT 27/10, 2^ND CROSS, OLD FUNCTION MOHALLA COTTONPET BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 053.

¶10

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

MR. NAVEED PASHA S/O LATE ABDUL RAUF, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT 25/1, 1^ST CROSS, OLD FUNCTION MOHALLA COTTONPET, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 053

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COTTONPET P.S.,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:51932 CRL.P No. 2023 of 2024

¶18

REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

SMT. NAZI MUNNISA ARSHIYA W/O MOHAMMED JAVEED PASHA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF: RESIDING AT 27/10, 2^ND CROSS, OLD FUNCTION, MOHALLA COTTONPET, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 053.

¶20

AS PER COMPLAINT PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 1631/2/2, 1^ST FLOOR, BEHIND SHANKAR AUTO MOBILES, THRIVENI ROAD YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560 022.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MADHUKARA MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED, BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.21817/2021 (CR.NO.103/2021) FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A),506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT REGISTERED AND CHARGED SHEETED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE i.e CONNTON PET P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 31ST A.C.M.M BENGALURU.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶25

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:51932 CRL.P No. 2023 of 2024

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This petition is filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.2 to 4, under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.21817/2021, pending on the file of XXXI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out of Crime No.103/2021, registered and charge-sheeted by the Cottonpet Police Station at Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Sections498(A), 506, read with Section-34 of IPC and Sections - 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶31

Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the respondent - State. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.

¶32

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint filed by respondent No.2 in Cottonpet Police Station FIR on 17.06.2021. It is alleged that she has

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:51932 CRL.P No. 2023 of 2024

¶35

married the accused No.1 on 28.05.2016 (not made a party herein). During the term of marriage, the family of the complainant has given gold bangles, necklace, 10 pair of earrings, finger rings, bracelets, two pair of maati, and other dowry articles to accused No.1 and after the marriage, she was staying in the matrimonial home. The accused looked after well for six months and thereafter accused No.1 and the in-laws started harassing the complainant for additional dowry. They demanded Rs.5 lakh and abused the complainant physically and mentally. The accused No.1 also tried to go for the second marriage and accordingly the demand was not meted out by the complainant and Rs.2 lakh was paid by the complainant family to the accused and they were not satisfied and finally on 07.06.2021 the accused has thrown out the complainant from the house. Hence, the complaint came to be filed.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:51932 CRL.P No. 2023 of 2024

¶37

The Police after registering the FIR conducted investigation and filed the charge-sheet which is under challenge.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶39

contended that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner No.3 and their in-laws and the entire allegation goes against the accused in general and ominous allegations. This Court considering the same quashed the criminal proceedings as against accused no.5 and this petitioner is also entitled for the same relief. The learned counsel also contended that subsequently the respondent No.2 filed a maintenance petition under Section-125 of Cr.P.C. against these petitioners which came to be stayed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.13505/2024. Therefore, prayed for quashing this. The learned HCGP objects the petition.

¶40

Having heard the arguments, perused the records. Perusal of the same reveals that this Court while considering a similar application filed by accused no.5 in

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC:51932 CRL.P No. 2023 of 2024

¶43

Criminal Petition No.1250/2022, quashed the criminal proceedings against accused No.5 on 06.03.2023. Wherein this Court has held there is ominous allegation against accused No.5 and whose name was implicated only subsequently in the complaint and in the charge-sheet There is no specific allegation made against accused no.5.

¶44

Accordingly, by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. State of Bihar, in Criminal Appeal No.195/2022, quashed the criminal proceedings. Now on

¶45

this background looking into the complaint filed by respondent No.2 wherein it is revealed that after the marriage, CW-1 i.e., complainant was staying with accused Nos.1 to 3. There is categorical mentioning in the complaint that the accused No.4 i.e. Naveed and another person was residing separately. But accused Nos.1 to 3 were residing in one roof though the petitioner No.2 i.e., accused No.3 is a woman but she is widowed daughter and she is residing in the same house along with accused no.2

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:51932 CRL.P No. 2023 of 2024

¶48

and 3. Even on the date of throwing the victim / complainant from the house accused Nos.1 to 3 were present they conspired together and thrown the complainant out of house. There is specific allegation made by the complainant in the complaint itself. Even the Police have produced the purchase bills for having purchased the golden ornaments by the parents of the complainant which are matter of records. Learned counsel also submits subsequently on registering the FIR, the Police came and seized the golden ornaments from the house of the accused.

¶49

On perusal of the records, it is clear that the allegation against the accused No.4 is ominous and only the mention of the names but there is no specific allegation against him. On the other hand, there is specific allegation against the mother-in-law and sister-in-law along with accused No.1. Considering the facts and circumstances, the proceedings against accused No.4 namely, Naveed is nothing but abuse of process of law and

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:51932 CRL.P No. 2023 of 2024

¶51

liable to be quashed. However, there is specific allegation against accused Nos.2 & 3 and they have to face the trial.

¶52

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i) Petition is allowed in part.

¶55

ii) Petition filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 under

¶56

Section-482 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶57

iii) The petition filed by accused No.4, i.e., Naveed Pasha is hereby allowed. The proceedings against him in C.C. No.21817/2021, pending on the file of XXXI Addl.

¶58

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore arising out of Crime No.103/2021, is hereby quashed.

¶59

Sd/(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶60

¶61

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4

Mrs. Zaibunnisa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Zaibunnisa 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

Mr. E Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Sukanya Vs M/S Bsl Net

P Srinivas Reddy Vs M Raja Shekar Raju

Smt.Jamuna Vs Smt.Yashodamma

Smt. Jinimol Jay Jacob Vs Manjushree Techno Pack Limited

Sri. C. Govindaswamy Vs Sri. S. Manjunatha