Karnataka High Court Khawaja Moinuddin S/O Abdul … vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2014 BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100559/2014 BETWEEN
1. KHAWAJA MOINUDDIN
S/O ABDUL HAMEED MADLUR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.SHIVANAND NAGAR,
4TH CROSS, NEAR GADI KARKHANE, TOLL NAKA, DHARWAD.
2. ABDUL HAMEED S/O ABDUL MUNAF MADLUR AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.SHIVANAND NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, NEAR GADI KARKHANE, TOLL NAKA, DHARWAD
3. FAREEDA W/O ABDUL HAMEED MADLUR AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.SHIVANAND NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, NEAR GADI KARKHANE, TOLL NAKA, DHARWAD
4. MALLIKJAN S/O ABDUL HAMEED MADLUR AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.SHIVANAND NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, NEAR GADI KARKHANE, TOLL NAKA, DHARWAD.
5. RUKSAR D/O ABDUL HAMEED MADLUR AGE: MAJOR,
2
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O.SHIVANAND NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, NEAR GADI KARKHANE, TOLL NAKA, DHARWAD.
6. AAISHA D/O ABDUL HAMEED MADLUR AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.SHIVANAND NAGAR, 4TH CROSS, NEAR GADI KARKHANE, TOLL NAKA, DHARWAD. … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.: AHAMED ALI J RAHIMANSHA, ADV.) AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS MAHILA POLICE STATION,
HUBLI, TALUKA HUBLI,
DIST: DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, DHRWAD.
2. SHAMIMBANU D/O FAKRUSAB KOLKAR AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. K.H.B.COLONY,
H.NO.C-10, NAVANAGAR, HUBLI. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.M.BANAKAR, ADD. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS MAHILA POLICE STATION, REGISTERED UNDER ITS CRIME NO.9/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 3
THE JMFC COURT, HUBLI, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6) U/S 498-A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.
2. The petitioner approached this Court, seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.9/2014 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C. Hubli, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The records disclose that the respondent No.2-Shamimbanu, the wife of the first petitioner lodged a complaint before the Mahila Police Station, Hubli, on 12/3/2014 alleging the offences being committed by the petitioners for the above said offences. The police in fact have registered a FIR in Crime No.9/2014 and started investigation.
4
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no relationship of husband and wife between the first petitioner as well as the respondent No.2. Divorce had been taken place by means of Talak nama on 17/2/2014 at 4.30pm. Accordingly, the documents have been recorded to that effect on 18/2/2014.
4. Looking from the above said documents, this Court is not in a position to ascertain whether those documents are genuine and in fact the Talak Nama had been entered into between the parties or not. These documents have to be examined by the competent authority to ascertain whether Talak nama had been actually taken place or not and whether the police can still investigate the matter or not. It is purely the helm of the affairs of the police Officer to take appropriate decision at appropriate time. If at all, the accused has got such documents and materials to show that the complaint has been filed in order to harass the petitioner and also he has got some genuine documents to show that the divorce had already been taken place by means of Talak 5
nama, he is at liberty to produce all those documents before the Investigating Officer and the Investigating Officer has to investigate into matter and find out the truth or otherwise of the complaint. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has to file an appropriate report before the learned Magistrate. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved by any of the report submitted by the police, he is at liberty to report the competent authority for his remedies.
With these observations, the petition stands dismissed. Application does not survive for consideration. Sd/-
JUDGE
Vmb
