Dismissed¶54

Smt Sabah Azeez v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Oct 2025CRL.P/5181/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023, decided 15.10.2025 by Justice M.I.Arun. S.482 Cr.P.C. petition by Smt. Sabah Azeez to quash FIR Crime No.88/2022 (24.05.2022), Hassan City P.S., offences ss.466, 177, 120B, 477, 468, 34 IPC, arising from competing widow/estate claims over late Azhar Nadeem between the petitioner and respondent no.2 (Smt. Mariya), with allegations of forged documents including the death certificate. Held: allegations, if true, constitute the offence; guilt ascertainable only after investigation; no interference at the FIR stage; investigation to proceed in the manner known to law; petition DISMISSED; pending IAs disposed.

What did the court decide?

If the allegations made in the complaint filed by respondent no.2 are found to be true, they constitute the offence as alleged in the FIR. ¶47

Smt Sabah Azeez Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.88/2022 dated 24.05.2022 of Hassan City Police Station, registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 466, 177, 120B, 477, 468 and 34 IPC, should be quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶40

Court's answer

If the allegations made in the complaint filed by respondent no.2 are found to be true, they constitute the offence as alleged in the FIR.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Whether the petitioner is guilty can be determined only after investigation is completed by the jurisdictional police; since the allegations are required to be investigated, it is not a fit case to interfere at this stage.

¶51

Key takeaways

Recording the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader, the Court directed the prosecution to conduct the investigation in the manner known to law and do the needful thereafter, and dismissed the petition.ratio¶53

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. dismissed — rival claims to widowhood and estate of late Azhar Nadeem — FIR Crime No.88/2022 dt. 24.05.2022, Hassan City P.S., ss.466, 177, 120B, 477, 468 & 34 IPC. On the death of Azhar Nadeem, the petitioner Smt. Sabah Azeez and respondent no.2 Smt. Mariya each claimed to be his widow and claimed his estate; respondent no.2 complained that the petitioner, to appropriate the deceased's entire property, created false documents including the death certificate, whereupon the FIR was registered against two accused including the petitioner. The learned HCGP submitted that mere registration of an FIR does not mean a charge sheet will necessarily be filed, and that a thorough investigation would precede any charge sheet. The Court held that if the complaint allegations are true they constitute the alleged offence, but the petitioner's guilt can be determined only after investigation by the jurisdictional police, and that it was not a fit case to interfere at that stage. Recording the HCGP's submission and directing the prosecution to investigate in the manner known to law, the Court dismissed the petition; pending IAs, if any, were disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5181 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT SABAH AZEEZ W/O LATE AZHAR NADEEM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT MIG-02, 11/A 2^ND STAGE, KUVEMPU NAGAR

¶9

HASSAN-573 201. ALSO AT: NO.23, 2 'B' CROSS SULTAN PALYA, R.T NAGAR BENGALURU-560 032.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY MISS. ANKITA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR

¶13

SRI. RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CITY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SMT. MARIYA

¶20

W/O LATE AZHAR NADEEM (DISPUTED) AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT: MIG-02, 11/A, 2^ND STAGE KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573 201.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.

¶24

PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN CRIME NO.88/2022 DATED 24.05.2022 INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 466, 177, 120B, 477, 468 AND 34 OF IPC, PERTAINING IN HASSAN CITY P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

Upon the death of one Azhar Nadeem, the petitioner herein as well as respondent no.2 made a claim to be the widow of the deceased and have made a claim to his estate. The petitioner denies the fact that respondent no.2 was married to the deceased. Respondent no.2 submits that she is the second wife of the deceased and that the deceased died in Mangalore Hospital, but the petitioner with the sole intention of knocking off the property of the deceased in entirety created false documents including the death certificate of the deceased and tried to misuse the same. In this regard, respondent No.2 made a complaint to respondent no.1-Police, which has resulted in a FIR being lodged under Sections 466, 177, 120B, 477, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against two accused persons of which the petitioner is one of them. The allegations in the FIR are as follows:

¶32

"¢£ÁAPÀ 24.05.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 05.30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢ ªÀÄjAiÀiÁ PÉÆÃA ¯ÉÃ|| Cdgï £À¢ÃA, 35 ªÀµÀð, JA.L.f-2, 2£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀ, PÀÄªÉA¥ÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ, ºÁ¸À£À gÀªÀgÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆj£À ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ UÀAqÀ Cdgï £À¢ÃA gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.05.2021 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆÃ«Ãqï ¤AzÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À PÀtZÀÆgÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ PÉÆÃmÉPÀgï mË£ï ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï ¤AzÀ ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, »ÃVgÀÄªÁUÉÎ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ UÀAqÀ Cdgï £À¢ÃA gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃ ºÉAqÀw ¸À¨sÁ CfÃeï gÀªÀjAzÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 11 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV ªÁ¸À«zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ UÀAqÀ£À D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®¥ÀmÁ¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ ±ÀQÃ¨ï Hgï gÉºÀªÀiÁ£ï gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÀÆr ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÁ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

19.01.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr ¸ÀAZÀÄ gÀÆ¦¹ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶Ö¹PÉÆAqÀÄ Cdgï £À¢ÃA gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀÈ¶Ö ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ªÀÄgÀt ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ PÁ®A £À°è ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ gÀ«ÃAzÀæ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹, ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§AzÀ ¥ÀlÖ £ÀUÀgÀ ¸À¨sÁ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¤Ãr 23 £ÉÃ ªÁqïð CeÁzï gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ UÀAqÀ Cdgï £À¢ÃA gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀÄªÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆÃ¦ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸À¨sÁ CfÃeï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀQÃ¨ï Hgï gÉºÀªÀiÁ£ï CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¥Àæ.ªÀ.ªÀgÀ¢ü."

¶36

Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

¶37

The case of the petitioner is that, she is the lawfully

¶38

wedded wife of the deceased Azhar Nadeem and respondent no.2 has got nothing to do with him. It is further submitted that

¶39

she has not committed any forgery or concocted any documents as alleged and prays for the following reliefs:

¶40

"(a) Quash the First Information Report registered by the Respondent No.1 Police in Crime No.0088/2022 dated 24.05.2022 insofar as the Petitioner is concerned for offences punishable under section 466, 177, 120B, 477, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining in Hassan City PS. pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan vide ANNEXURE-A.

¶41

(b) Pass such orders that this Hon'ble Court be deems fit in the interest of justice."

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits

¶45

that the allegations made in her complaint are all true and correct and the petitioner in collusion with accused no.2 as mentioned in the FIR has created false documents, including the death certificate of the deceased and the matter requires investigation.

¶46

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1-State submits that mere registration of FIR does not mean that a charge sheet will be filed against the petitioner herein. He submits that a thorough investigation will be conducted by recording the necessary statements from the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 and such other persons required and will also do necessary interrogation of persons necessary and only thereafter if sufficient material is found against the petitioner, then only charge sheet will be filed against her.

¶47

Admittedly, if the allegations made in the complaint filed by respondent no.2 are found to be true, it does constitute offence as alleged in the FIR. However, whether petitioner is guilty of the same or not can be determined only after

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

investigation is completed by the jurisdictional Police. Thereafter if a charge sheet is filed against the petitioner, the prosecution is still required to prove the case against the petitioner to have her convicted and the petitioner is having the liberty to defend herself in the manner known to law. However, as the allegations made are required to be investigated, I am of the opinion that, it is not a fit case to interfere at this stage. Hence, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

Recording the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader and with a direction to the prosecution to conduct investigation in the manner known to law and do the

¶54

needful thereafter, the petition is hereby dismissed .

¶55

Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of.

¶56

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶57

PGG

Smt Sabah Azeez v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sabah Azeez v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Saritha Vs State of Karnataka

N.a.Venkatesh Gupta Vs the State by

Pooja R Vs the State of Karnataka

R. D. Chaitra Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Mr.Santosh Sidha Vs Ms.Rohini Iyengar

Sri C v Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka