Hasan Thouseef, Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ULLALA POLIDE STATION, MANGALORE, D.K. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

MOHAMMED MUSTHAK S/O ABDUL AZEEZ, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KUTHAR, SUBHAS NAGAR, FORMERLY MANGALURU TALUK, AT PRESENT ULLALA TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:10325 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2023

¶18

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP; SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO (i) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.3) PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF J.M.F.C. (VII COURT) DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU IN P.C.R.NO.7/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 294, 323, 324, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC; (ii) QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.3) BY THE ULLAL POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.46/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 294, 323, 324, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE 7^TH JMFC COURT, MANGALURU, D.K.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional SPP for the State and the learned counsel appearing for defacto complainant.

¶24

Petitioner is seeking to quash the entire proceedings in PCR No.7/2023, pending against him on the file of the Court of JMFC (VII Court), D.K., Mangaluru.

¶25

Petition is filed on two grounds, firstly, it is contended that at the time of alleged incident,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10325 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2023

¶27

petitioner/accused No.3 was not in the country and secondly, the private complaint which was referred to police for investigation was not supported with an affidavit, contrary to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava and another v. State of U.P. and other (AIR 2015 SC

¶28

1758) .

¶29

A private complaint was filed by respondent No.2, which was referred to police for investigation, consequent to which a case in Crime No.46/2023 was registered at Ullal Police Station, Mangaluru City, for offences punishable under Section 294, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC.

¶30

It is alleged in the complaint that on 28.01.2023 at about 7.00 p.m., the accused and their people came near the business place of complainant and demanded a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and threatened him with dire consequences etc.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10325 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2023

¶32

Accused No.1 is the wife, accused No.2 is the

¶33

father-in-law and accused No.3 is the brother-in-law of the complainant. A perusal of the complaint averments goes to show that the parties are at loggerheads and there are civil as well as criminal cases pending between them. The subject matter is confined to an incident which took place on 28.01.2023, wherein it is alleged that all the three accused went to the place where the complainant was selling fish and demanded a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and threatened him saying that if the said amount was not paid they will cause harm to him by paying hafta to goonda elements.

¶34

Petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3. It is submitted that he is employed in Saudi Arabia and the date on which the alleged incident occurred, he was not present in India. To buttress the said contention, the learned counsel for petitioner has enclosed a copy of the passport at Annexure-D. The entries made in the passport shows that the petitioner had travelled abroad on

¶35

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10325 CRL.P No. 4969 of 2023

¶36

11.11.2022 and returned to India on 03.06.2023. Hence, as on the date of incident i.e., 28.01.2023, the presence of the petitioner at the alleged spot is doubtful. The other aspects of the case need not be gone into as this Court is satisfied that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

Petition is allowed.

¶39

FIR in Crime No.46/2023 and the entire proceedings as against the petitioner/accused No.3 pending in PCR No.7/2023 on the file of the Court of JMFC (VII Court) D.K., Mangaluru is quashed.

¶40

I.A.No.1/2024 is disposed of.

¶41

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶42

HB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Hasan Thouseef, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hasan Thouseef, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.H.S. Ramesh Vs State by Karnataka

Smt. Shilpa Ashok Vs State by Jnanabharathi

Ajay Kumar Gaali @ Gaali Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rashmi B C Vs Sri M v Venkatesh

Smt. J. Vijaya Vs State of Karnataka, Nazarbad.P.S, Devaraj Sub-Division, Mysuru City, MYSURU-01

Mr Vibhakar Bhushan Vs Mr Ashok Kumar Agarwal