Mr Mohammed Shareef @ Mohammed Sharief @ Fahim Haji Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:37876 CRL.P No. 8592 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8592 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR.MOHAMMED SHAREEF @ MOHAMMED SHARIEF @ FAHIM HAJI, S/O ABDUL AJEEJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE NEAR KARODA, UDYAVARA, MANJESHWARA, KASARAGOD – 671 323.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIKRAM RAJ A., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH MANGALURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR RESPONDENTS)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:37876 CRL.P No. 8592 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN SPL.C.NO.217/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120-B, 354-A, 354-C, 363, 366-A, 370-A, 370(4), 376, 109, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, SEC. 4, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 OF POCSO ACT, SEC. 3, 4, 5, 8 OF IMMORAL TRAFFIC (PREVENTION) ACT AND SEC. 67(B) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-II (POCSO) AT D.K, MANGALURU ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.12/2022 OF THE MANGALURU WOMEN POLICE STATION.

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Heard Sri.Vikram Raj A, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for the respondent-State and have perused the material on record.

¶25

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the continuance of proceedings against him in Special Case No.217/2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 120-B, 354-A, 354-C, 363, 366-A, 370-A, 370(4), 376, 109, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 of POCSO Act, Sections 3, 4, 5, 8

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37876 CRL.P No. 8592 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 67(B) of Information Technology Act, arising out of Crime No.12/2022. The petitioner is accused No.7. A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.12/2022 against accused No.7. All the other accused faced trial and have been acquitted of the offences pursuant to an order of concerned Court in Spl. Case No.108/2022. The reasons so rendered by the concerned Court is as follows:

¶29

"10. Point No.1: The fact that the victim was a minor girl aged less than 18 years as on the alleged date of commission of offence is not at all in dispute as the counsels for accused persons have submitted no objection for marking of birth certificate as per Ex. P48 and study certificate, copy of her SSLC marks card, college attendance register extract, admission register extract collectively as per Ex.P49. The said documents clearly disclose that the date of birth of victim is 15.04.2004 and as on the alleged date of incident said to have taken place in the year 2021 and 2022, she had not yet completed the age of 18 years. Hence, without much discussion on this point, this court holds that the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor aged less than 18 years as on the alleged date of incident and there is no hesitation for this court to answer Point No.1 in the affirmative. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.

¶30

Points No.2 to 6: Since these points are interconnected with each other, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and appreciation of evidence, all these points are taken together for discussion.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37876 CRL.P No. 8592 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the aforesaid offences charged against them, the prosecution has examined 23 witnesses as PW.1 to 23 and got marked 69 documents as Ex.P1 to P69 and 07 material objects were also marked as M.O.1 to 7.

¶34

13.1 Among the ocular evidence let in by the prosecution, P.W.1/CW.1 is the victim, PW.2/CW.2 is also another victim girl who is alleged to have been subjected to prostitution by accused No.1 to 6. P.W.3/C.W.30-Smt. Anupama is the Supervisor of Women and Children Welfare Department, Mangaluru who has been cited as spot mahazar witness. P.W.4/C.W.6-Smt. Zalkar Naina is the mother of victim. P.W.5/C.W.5-Kum. Fathimath Nafiya is the classmate and friend of victim and C.W.2 who is alleged to have assisted victim and C.W.2 to unearth the commission of offence by accused persons and their involvement in prostitution and human trafficking by informing the Principal of Government Women's College, Balmatta, Mangaluru. P.W.6/C.W.9Smt. Vijayalakshmi is the alleged domestic help/maid servant in the house of accused No.1.

¶35

13.2. P.W.7/C.W.34-Abdul Razak and P.W.8/C.W.35-P. Gopalakrishna are the witnesses to seizure mahazar drawn P.W.9/C.W.36-Sharath. K. and P.W.10/C.W.37-Sathish K.N. in the flat No.402 of SMR West Gate, Liyan Apartment are the witnesses to seizure mahazar drawn at the house of accused No.2. P.W.11/C.W.38-Siddiq is the witness to data extraction mahazars conducted at CEN lab. P.W.12/C.W.33 Prasidh Rai is a witness to arrest cum seizure mahazar drawn at the time of arresting accused No.2. P.W.13/C.W.43Vignesh, P.W.14/C.W.44-Mahesh are the witnesses to arrest cum seizure mahazar drawn at the time of arresting accused No.6.

¶36

13.3. P.W.15/C.W.40-Koushik and P.W.16/C.W.41Nithin Shetty are the witnesses to arrest cum seizure mahazar drawn at the time of arresting accused No.3 and 5. P.W.17/C.W.44-Vijay Kumar & P.W.18/C.W.45Ganesh Shetty are the witnesses to seizure mahazar drawn at the instance of accused No.6 in his house. P.W.19/C.W.73- Suresh Kumar Y. is the P.S.I. who

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:37876 CRL.P No. 8592 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

registered the FIR. P.W.20/C.W.80-Manjula. L., is the PSI., who recorded the statements of victim, P.Ws.2, 4 and 5. P.W.21/C.W.81-Dr. Lekha M.B. is the Medical Officer who examined the victim. P.W.22/C.W.85-Mahesh Prasad is Police Inspector cum Investigating Officer who investigated into the matter and submitted charge sheet and P.W.23/C.W.93-Dr. Madhusudan M.G. is the Forensic Science Expert, FSL, Bengaluru who forensically examined the mobiles sent for examination and issued report.

¶41

With this short introduction to the prosecution witnesses, if the available ocular evidence let in by the prosecution is carefully perused, except a few arrest and seizure mahazar witnesses and official witnesses, almost all the independent witnesses including the victim, her mother i.e, P.W.4, P.W.2 and P.W.5 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution and thereby gave a set back to the prosecution to prove its case.

¶42

The victim who has been examined as P.W.1 has gone to the extent of denying her acquaintance with accused No.2 to 7 and deceased accused No.1 and specifically denied the alleged visit said to have been made by her to the said flat No.402 of accused No.1 and 2 with C.W.2 at any time and the alleged act of accused No.1 to 6 in inducing her and sexually abetting her to get indulged in prostitution. She also specifically denied the commission of penetrative sexual assault and rape by accused No.7. She also denied that she had disclosed the said facts to C.W.4, C.W.5 and to her College Principal including the lodging of FIS by her as per Ex.P1.

¶43

Similarly, she has also denied the visit made by her to Lady Goschen hospital and undergoing medical examination. She has specifically deposed that she has not shown any place to the 1.0. nor has handed over any clothes or mobiles at any time to him nor he has drawn any mahazars. Though she has admitted that she has given a statement u/sec. 164 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate. She has specifically stated that the said statement is not voluntary statement and she has given the said statement as tutored by the complainant police. Similarly, she has also deposed that she has not

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:37876 CRL.P No. 8592 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

visited the Central Prison nor she has identified any of the accused persons and thereby she has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

¶48

Even P.W.2/C.W.2 who is another victim girl who is alleged to have introduced the victim girl to accused No.1 to 6 by yielding to their blackmail and threat of exposure, has also not supported the case of prosecution and though she admitted that victim girl, C.W.4 and C.W.5 were her classmates while she was studying at I PUC in Government Women's College at Balmatta, Mangaluru, she denied her acquaintance with accused persons and that she has not seen them anywhere.

¶49

She also denied the alleged sexual assault, harassment, blackmail and threat said to have been caused by the accused No.1 to 6. She has further denied that she had introduced the victim girl to accused No.1 to 6 and took her to flat No.402 of accused No.1 by yielding to the threat and blackmail caused by the accused No.1 to 6 of exposing her nude & vulgar photos and videos in social media. She also denied that the victim girl had told her that the accused No.7 has sexually assaulted her in the said flat and that she was subjected to sexual exploitation and prostitution by the accused No.1 to 6 and thereby she also completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

¶50

Even the mother of the victim girl i.e., P.W.4/C.W.6- Smt. Zalkar Naina has also not supported the case of prosecution and specifically denied that the College Principal of victim girl had called her and informed that victim is not attending her classes correctly and asked her the reasons for her absence to the classes. She also denied that the victim girl had told her that C.W.2 had introduced her to accused No.1 and 2 by taking her to flat No.402 of SMR Liyan Apartment and at that time accused No.3 to 6 were also came in contact with her and they all induced her stating that she can make money if she get involved with sexual activity with male persons and that the said accused persons have made her to have sexual intercourse with several male customers. She also denied that the College Principal of

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:37876 CRL.P No. 8592 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

victim girl called Child Helpline and gave information about sexual exploitation of victim girl and that the police had inquired the victim and took first information statement from her and also recorded her statement. She also denied that the victim and complainant police have shown the accused persons at police station and thereby she also completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

¶55

In the same manner P.W.5/C.W.5 Kum. Fathimath Nafiya, the classmate of victim girl who is alleged to have first informed the facts disclosed by victim girl to the college Lecturer and Principal which led to the registering of the above case, has also not supported the case of prosecution and she has only deposed that victim and P.W.2 were her classmates while she was studying in 1st PUC at Government Women's College, Balmatta, Mangaluru, the victim and P.W.2 had not taken her to any Mall or any other place and were not spending money lavishly for providing food and snacks to her and other friends and that she has not asked the victim as to from where she is getting that much of money and the victim had not disclosed about the alleged sexual exploitation by the accused No. 1 to 6 by getting her involved in prostitution and that she has not disclosed the same to the Principal of the said college. She also denied the alleged visit said to have been made by the co-ordinators from Child Helpline and the complainant police and inquiring her and she giving statement to the complainant police about the above said facts and thereby she also completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

¶56

P.W.6/C.W.9-Smt. Vijayalakshmi who is alleged to be the domestic help/maid servant of deceased accused No.1 in the said flat No.402 of SMR West Gate, Liyan Apartment and claimed to have seen the accused No.2 to 6 in the said flat of accused No.1 along with the victim girl and several male customers including accused No.7 visiting the house of accused No.1 while they were involved in prostitution, has also not supported the case of prosecution by refusing to state all the said facts said to have been stated by her in her statement recorded u/sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. and denied the very fact that she

¶57

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:37876 CRL.P No. 8592 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

was working as a domestic help in the house of deceased accused No.1. She has further stated that she had not seen any of the accused persons other than deceased accused No.1 and she has also not seen the victim or other alleged customers said to have visited the said flat and thereby she has completely turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

¶60

Despite cross-examining all these witnesses at length after this court permitting the learned S.P.P. to cross examine them by treating them as hostile witnesses, absolutely nothing could be elicited by learned S.P.P. from the mouths of the above witnesses to prove the case put forth by the prosecution. As such the said evidence of all these witnesses are of no avail for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons for any of the offences charged against them."

¶61

A perusal at the aforesaid paragraphs of the order

¶62

would indicate that everyone of the prosecution witness have turned hostile and therefore, the charge could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The petitioner at that point in time was not available for trial and therefore, a split charge was drawn against the petitioner and in the split charge, proceedings are now sought to be continued. If the evidence let in or the paragraphs preferred quoted herein above are considered, what would unmistakably emerge is that the petitioner would also become entitled to the same benefit of acquittal as the acquittal is based upon the witnesses turning hostile. If the witnesses have turned hostile qua other accused,

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:37876 CRL.P No. 8592 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

it cannot be said that they would support the case of the prosecution when the petitioner is put to trial. It would be waste of precious judicial time to permit the petitioner to undergo the rigmarole of trial and only to get acquitted eventually.

¶66

In that light, I deem it appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶67

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶68

O R D E R

¶69

[i] Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶70

[ii] The entire proceedings against the petitioner in Spl.C. No. 217/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 354-A, 354-C, 363, 366-A, 370-A, 370(4), 376, 109, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, Sections 4, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 of POCSO Act, Sections 3, 4, 5, 8 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act and Section 67 (B) of Information Technology Act, pending on the file of the Hon'ble Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC

¶71

10 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:37876 CRL.P No. 8592 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

II (POCSO) at D.K., Mangaluru arising out of Crime No.12/2022 of the Mangaluru Women Police Station, stands quashed.

¶75

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶76

CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67

Mr Mohammed Shareef @ Mohammed Sharief @ Fahim Haji v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mohammed Shareef @ Mohammed Sharief @ Fahim Haji 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R Kantha Raju Vs the President

Smt. Jabeena Begum Vs Smt. G. Lakshmi

Kolaramma Silk Khadi Gramodyog Sangha Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/S Mycon Construction Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh B R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Hanumanthappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Competent Authority