Partly allowed

Mr. Riyaz Ahmed v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Mar 2024CRL.P/2862/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash dowry harassment proceedings arising from a daughter-in-law's complaint. Court found allegations against husband and mother-in-law prima facie genuine but omnibus and general against other in-laws residing separately, relying on Supreme Court precedent, and quashed proceedings against accused Nos. 3 to 10 only.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against accused Nos.3 to 10 in C.C.No.5/2022 quashed; petition of accused Nos.1 and 2 dismissed.

Mr. Riyaz Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:10097 CRL.P No. 2862 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2862 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. RIYAZ AHMED AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O ENAYATH PASHA, PERESANDRA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 104.

¶8

SMT. JAMEENA JABEEN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O IMAMSABI, PERESANDRA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 104.

¶9

ESHAN

¶10

Digitally signed by BHAVANI BAI G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O INAYATH BASHA, PERESANDRA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 104.

¶12

AMEER JAN

¶13

AGED ABOUT 53 ABOUT, S/O DODDAKASIM KHAN, PERESANDRA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 104.

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:10097 CRL.P No. 2862 of 2022

¶15

5. MARIANBI

¶16

C/O AMEER JAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, PERESANDRA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 104.

¶17

SALMA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O REHAMAN, BEECHAGANAHALLI CROSS, SOMENAHALLI HOBLI, GUDIBANDE TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 104.

¶18

MAHABOOB S/O FAKRUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PERESANDRA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 104.

¶19

DADAPEER S/O AMEERJAN, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, PERESANDRA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 104.

¶20

SMT. AMMAJAHAN D/O IMAMSAB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PERESANDRA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 562 104.

¶21

MABULLA D/O ARUR IMAMSAB, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶22

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10097 CRL.P No. 2862 of 2022

¶23

PERESANDRA VILLAGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT- 562 104.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. S.R.SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKABALLAPURA WOMAN POLICE, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562 104. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶28

SMT. AMREEN TAJ AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, W/O RIYAZ AHMED, NO.26/42, GANGAMIDDE ROAD, WARD NO.7, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 526 2104.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ADINARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.5 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND CJM COURT, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶32

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

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10097 CRL.P No. 2862 of 2022

¶34

ORDER

¶35

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 10 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.5/2022 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur arising out of Crime No.125/2021 registered by Women Police Station, Chikkaballapura and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act.

¶36

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶37

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the police registered the FIR and it is alleged by the complainant that she got married with petitioner No.1 on 29.06.2020. At the time of marriage, her mother has given dowry of Rs.2,00,000/- cash, golden ring, chain, watch and 20 pairs of cloths, almirah, cot, washing machine etc., and all house hold items. Subsequent to the marriage, the accused

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10097 CRL.P No. 2862 of 2022

¶39

persons said to be demanded additional dowry and a motor bike for accused No.1 and unnecessarily, they troubled her physically and mentally. Hence, she filed a complaint. After registering the FIR, the Police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet which is under challenge.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there is omnibus allegation against all the petitioners which is the general allegation. There is no specific allegation for demanding any dowry etc. The petitioner No.1 filed the divorce case against the respondent No.2 on 31.03.2021. Subsequently, complaint came to be filed after one year 4 months of leaving the house and there is no prima facie material against the petitioners and hence, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶41

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 objected the petition and contended that there is prima facie material placed on record against the petitioners for having committed the offence and learned High Court Government Pleader also submits that there is prima facie material for

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10097 CRL.P No. 2862 of 2022

¶43

having committed the offence. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶44

Having heard the arguments and perused the

¶45

records, on perusal of the complaint as well as the charge sheet material, there are three eye witnesses and neighbours were examined by the Investigating Officer other than the mother of the complainant but they have stated about the dowry, receipt of dowry articles and also other utensils, demand of dowry and assaulting the complainant by the petitioners. However, the petitioner No.1 is the husband and petitioner No.2 is the mother-in-law. The other petitioners are brother, sister and brother in laws were all married and residing separately. The allegation is also common and genuine in nature. Except the allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2 who are husband and mother in law of respondent No.2, the other allegations are common and general in nature. In the similar case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 2022 LiveLa

¶46

w (SC) 141 , has quashed the criminal proceedings. Except accused Nos.1 and 2, the remaining accused are in laws of respondent No.2 and most of them were residing separately not

¶47

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10097 CRL.P No. 2862 of 2022

¶48

in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2. Such being the case, the question of framing of charge against the petitioners does not arise. Of course, accused Nos.1 and 2 are husband and motherin-law of respondent No.2, they stayed together in the matrimonial house along with the complainant. Such being the case, I am of the view, the petition filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 is required to be dismissed and the petition filed by accused Nos.3 to 10 is liable to be allowed.

¶49

7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part.

¶50

The petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 10 is hereby allowed .

¶51

The petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed .

¶52

The criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 to 10 in C.C.No.5/2022 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapur arising out of Crime No.125/2021 registered by Women Police Station, Chikkaballapura is hereby quashed.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

GBB_List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22_CT:SK

Mr. Riyaz Ahmed v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Riyaz Ahmed 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.Vasudevan Sathyamoorthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Santhosh S S Vs State of Karnataka

Anthonappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Abdul Khalak Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N Govindaraju Vs Sri Prashanth Kumar C

Sri M Ravindranath Vs Smt Pankaja T