—

Karnataka High Court

Mohammed Mudassir vs State Of Karnataka on 27 March, 2024

Author: K.Natarajan

Bench: K.Natarajan

-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:12685
CRL.P No. 2112 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 2062 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2112 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2062 OF 2022

IN CRL.P NO.2112/2022

BETWEEN:

MOHAMMED MUDASSIR
S/O SYED SHAFI ULLA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO.475, MUNESHWARA TEMPLE STREET,
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE NORTH,
BENGALURU – 560 064.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. LAKSHMI KANTHA M., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
BHAVANI BAI G AND:
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA PS,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA – 560 064.
REPRESENTED BY GOVT. PLEADER,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. SMT. SAFEEHA FIRDAUS
W/O MOHAMED MUDASSIR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:12685
CRL.P No. 2112 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 2062 of 2022

R/AT NO.12/A, KURLAPPA LAYOUT,
MARUTHINAGARA,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATIL, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.11.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU, THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE IN
C.C.NO.32910/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A R/W 34 OF
IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING
THEREON.

IN CRL.P NO.2062/2022

BETWEEN:

1 . SYEDSHAFIULLA
S/O SYED HYDER SAB,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

2 . SMT. PARVEENTAJ
W/O SYED SHAFI ULLA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

3 . SYEDGHOUSE
S/O SYED SHAFI ULLA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

4 . SYEDMUZAMMIL
S/O SYED SHAFI ULLA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

5 . SYEDZIAULLA
S/O SYED HYDER SAB
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/AT NO.475,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:12685
CRL.P No. 2112 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 2062 of 2022

MUNESHWARA TEMPLE STREET,
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE NORTH,
BENGALURU – 560 064.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LAKSHMI KANTHA M., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA PS,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA – 560 064.
REPRESENTED BY GOVT. PLEADER,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. SMT. SAFEEHA FIRDAUS
W/O MOHAMED MUDASSIR,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT NO.12/A, KURLAPPA LAYOUT,
MARUTHINAGARA,
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU – 560 064.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T.V.NANJEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2(ABSENT) )

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.11.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF 37TH A.C.M.M., AT
BENGALURU THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE IN
C.C.NO.32910/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498-A R/W
SEC.34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DP ACT AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING
THEREON.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:12685
CRL.P No. 2112 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 2062 of 2022

ORDER

Crl.P.No.2112/2022 is filed by the petitioner-accused

No.1 and Crl.P.No.2062/2022 is filed by the petitioners-accused

Nos.2 to 6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the

criminal proceedings in C.C.No.32910/2021 arising out of Crime

No.255/2021 registered by the Yelahanka Police Station,

Bengaluru and charge sheeted for the offence punishable under

Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961 (for short ‘D.P. Act’).

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the

State.

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 remained

absent.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint

filed by the respondent No.2 on 01.10.2021, the Police

registered the FIR against accused Nos.1 to 6 and after the

investigation, they filed charge sheet. It is alleged by the

respondent No.2 in the complaint that the accused No.1 is said
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:12685
CRL.P No. 2112 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 2062 of 2022

to be repeatedly assaulting her for the sake of jewellery and

dowry and he is said to be assaulted her physically and

mentally. Even on 01.02.2021, she has got MLC done for

having assaulted by the accused No.1, but had not made any

complaint or report against accused No.1 or other accused. She

is having a daughter aged about 2 years 9 months. On various

times, the accused no.1 assaulted her for dowry and later she

has stated that the family member of the accused No.1 i.e.,

brother and sister and also the neighbour also harassed her as

per the further statement, which is under challenge.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended

that there is omnibus allegation against the petitioners. There

is no specific allegation against the petitioners, relatives and

neighbors. The respondent No.2 already approached the Waqf

Board for divorce, where they have given advice to lead happy

marital life. In spite of residing together with accused No.1, she

has filed police complaint and there is no specific allegation in

the complaint. Therefore registering the FIR and filing the

charge sheet does not arise. The accused No.6 is the neighbour

and other petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 5 were residing in some

other place. Accused No.1 made separate house for her. She
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:12685
CRL.P No. 2112 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 2062 of 2022

is a double degree graduate. Therefore, she was not interested

to reside with the accused No.1. Therefore, prayed for quashing

the criminal proceedings.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

objected the petition and contended that the petitioner-accused

No.1 joined with other accused and harassed the complainant

physically and mentally. They assaulted on 01.02.2021 and

subsequently, they assaulted on 01.10.2021, therefore,

complaint came to be filed. The matter was investigated and

filed the charge sheet. Hence, prayed for dismissing the

petition.

7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the

records, the marriage of accused No.1 with the complainant

was held on 10.12.2017 is not in dispute and there is no

averment made in the complaint or in the further statement

that whether any demand of dowry made by the accused

persons prior to the marriage. However, the complaint reveals

the main allegation goes against accused No.1 who is her

husband who said to be mentally and physically assaulting,

abusing her for the sake of jewellery and dowry. She has not
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:12685
CRL.P No. 2112 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 2062 of 2022

stated whether the accused also demanded any such dowry

prior to the marriage and after the marriage. There is no

specific allegation against other accused persons i.e., accused

Nos.2 to 6 except accused No.6 who is said to be the neighbour

and the other accused are petitioners-parents-in-law, brother-

in-laws and brother of father-in-law. The entire allegation goes

against the accused No.1 who is the husband who said to be

continuously assaulting her. Even on 01.02.2021, she has

obtained the MLC for assault. Subsequently on 01.10.2021, he

said to be assaulted, the complainant sustained injury and the

wound certificate also produced. In the further statement, she

has implicated the other accused mainly the accused No.6 who

is the neighbour who also insisted the complainant to pay the

dowry. There is no specific allegation made against accused

Nos.2 to 6 for having physically and mentally harassed,

demanding any dowry and the entire allegation goes against

accused No.1 in the charge sheet. Of course, the respondent

No.2 approached the Jamia Masjid for grievance and the Masjid

people called both the parties and tried to settle the issues and

directed them to leave peacefully together. However, the

learned counsel for the petitioners submits she has not obeyed
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:12685
CRL.P No. 2112 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 2062 of 2022

the order of the Jamia Masjid or the Waqf Board, but she has

filed the complaint. Of course, the Jamia Masjid have settled

their issues, but respondent No.2 not accepted the settlement

and hence, she has filed complaint to the Police. Though the

petitioner-accused No.1 made separate house for her after the

order passed by the Waqf Board, but the fact remains the

petitioner No.1 said to be continuously harassed respondent

No.2. The police investigated the matter and filed the charge

sheet. Such being the case, there is material against the

petitioner No.1 for framing of charge and there is no material

for framing of charge against the petitioners-accused No.2 to 6

for giving the opportunity.

8. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following

ORDER

The petition filed by accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.2112/2022

is hereby dismissed.

The petition filed by accused Nos.2 to 6 in

Crl.P.No.2062/2022 is hereby allowed.

The criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused

Nos.2 to 6 in C.C.No.32910/2021 arising out of Crime
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:12685
CRL.P No. 2112 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 2062 of 2022

No.255/2021 registered by the Yelahanka Police Station,

Bengaluru are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GBB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
CT:SK