SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Fathima vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 June, 2018

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation