1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JUNE 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7537 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
FATHIMA,
W/O. ISAQ,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT: ANGADIPURAM,
VALAMBUR POST,
MALLAPURAM DISTRICT,
KERALA STATE-676 505. … PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASWATH U, ADV. FOR SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
ROBERTSONPET POLICE,
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. SMT. JAMEELA,
D/O T H MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT GAY TALKIES COMPOUND,
ROBERTSONPET,
K.G.F. – 563 124. … RESPONDENTS
(SRI. S RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
—
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings initiated in
Cr.No.61/1992 on the file of Robertsonpet P.S., now pending
2
in C.C. No.2374/1993 for the offences p/u/s 498(A), 304(B),
306 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4, 6 of D.P. Act on the file
of Prl. JMFC at KGF and etc.,
This Petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on
merits of the petition and also the learned High Court
Government Pleader.
2. The petitioner was originally arrayed as accused
No.3 in SC No.103/1996 on the file of the Principal
Sessions Judge, Kolar. As the petitioner was not available
for trial, the trial was held only against accused Nos.1 and
2 in the said sessions case and ultimately vide judgment
dated 19.03.2003 the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Kolar has acquitted accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said case.
It appears subsequently the petitioner was secured and a
separate split up charge sheet was registered in CC
No.433/2016 and it is further submitted by the learned
counsel that thereafter presently the sessions case has
been registered against the petitioner in SC No.96/2017
3
on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Kolar sitting at KGF.
3. The petitioner sought for extension of the benefit
of the said acquittal judgment in her favour on the ground
that, the allegations made against the acquitted accused
Nos.1 and 2 and the present petitioner are one and the
same and they are inseparable in nature. When the
Sessions Court has already appreciated the oral and
documentary evidence and came to the conclusion that,
the prosecution has not proved the case against the
accused Nos.1 and 2, even if the petitioner is tried once
again on the same allegations, no fruitful purpose would
be served and it is a shear waste of judicial time.
Therefore, the petitioner prayed for allowing of the
petition and sought for quashing of said sessions case in
SC No.96/2017.
4. The above said grounds urged by the petitioner
has to be tested on the basis of the factual matrix of the
case. However, before adverting to the materials on
4
record, it is just and necessary to bear in mind, a decision
of the Apex Court and this Court decided on similar set of
circumstances.
5. In this background, it is worth to note here a
decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2005 SCC
268 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation
v. Akhilesh Singh wherein it was held that:
“Quashing of charge and discharge of the
accused when an accused who alleged to
have hatched conspiracy and who had motive
to kill the deceased were already
discharged, that matter had attained finality,
the discharge of co-accused by High Court by
holding that no purpose would be served in
further proceeding with case against co-
accused held proper.”
6. In a decision reported in 2002(1) KCCR 1 in
the case of Muneer Ahmed Qureshi, Muneer @ Gaun
Muneer vs. State of Karnataka by Kumarswamy
Layout Police, wherein this Court has held that:
5
“Entire case of the prosecution as against
six accused is practically inseparable and
individual one and especially when the
Judgment of acquittal is passed, when P.W.1
denies the entire incident or the role of the
accused. This reasoning of acquittal would
also definitely enure to the petitioner. Even if
the petitioner is tried there cannot be any
other material other than what is already
produced and considered by Trial Court. In
such circumstances it will be an exercise in
futility to make the petitioner to undergo the
ordeal of crime, and then to be acquitted.
Holding that the proceeding against the
accused person who was absconding and
subsequently against whom a split up charge
sheet was filed was quashed.”
7. In the above said backgrounds, now the Court has
to see whether the evidence placed before the Principal
Sessions Judge, Kolar, against the acquitted accused, if
compared with the allegations made against the petitioner
are one and the same and are inseparable in nature so as
6
to extend the benefit of acquittal judgment in favour of
the petitioner.
8. On perusal of the charge sheet as well as the
evidence placed before the Trial Court in SC No.103/1996,
it clearly discloses that the 1st accused one Mr. Hamja
married deceased Jameela on 26.12.1991 at Suman
Marriage Hall, Robertsonpet, K.G.F. After the marriage, it
is alleged that, accused Nos.1 and 2 starting harassing
and ill-treating Smt. Jameela for the sake of dowry and
some gold articles. The cruelty meted out by them
aggravated against her and it became untolerable.
Therefore, being frustrated in life Smt. Jameela on
21.11.1992 has committed suicide by setting fire on
herself. The accused persons were instrumental for the
suicide committed by Smt. Jameela and therefore the
police have initiated the proceedings under Sections 498A,
304B and 306 of I.P.C and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
7
9. In order to prove the above said allegations PW-1
to PW-21 were examined before the Trial Court, Ex.P1 to
Ex.P18 documents were marked and material object M.O.1
was marked and Ex.D1 was also marked on behalf of the
accused. After appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence on record, the Court came to the conclusion that,
the prosecution has not proved the case against the
accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt.
10. Comparatively, the allegations made against
accused Nos.1 and 2 are more severe than the present
petitioner who was arrayed as accused No.3. Therefore,
on careful perusal of the materials on record, the
allegations made against the petitioner and other accused
are one and the same and they are inseparable in nature.
Therefore, I do not find any such reason to reject the
prayer of the petitioner. Even if the petitioner is tried
once again on the same allegations, the prosecution
cannot place better evidence than already placed which
has already been appreciated by the Trial Court by
8
recording the judgment of acquittal insofar as accused
Nos.1 and 2 are concerned.
11. On verification, there is no appeal preferred by
the State against acquittal judgment passed in SC
No.103/1996 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar.
12. In the above circumstances, the benefit of
acquittal has to be extended to the petitioner also. As
such I pass the following
ORDER
The petition is allowed. Consequently, case
registered in SC No.96/2017 filed in the III Addl. District
and Sessions Judge sitting at KGF and arising out of Crime
No.61/1992 for the offences under sections 498A, 304B
and 306 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and all further proceedings therein are
hereby quashed.
9
13. In view of the disposal of the petition, the
pending interlocutory applications do not survive for
consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RV