1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9772 OF 2016
BETWEEN:

1. SMT BADRUNISSA
W/O LATE ABDUL BASHEER
AGED ABOUT YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.2592/2,
M.K.D.K. ROAD, 2ND CROSS,
MANDI MOHALLA,
MYSURU – 570 011.

2. WASEEM
S/O LATE ABDUL BASHEER,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 53,
1ST CROSS, NO.2592/2
M.K.D.K. ROAD, 2ND CROSS,
MANDI MOHALLA,
MYSURU – 570 011. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI R.K.MAHADEVA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
NARASIMHARAJA POLICE STATION,
NARASIMHARAJA SUB-DIVISION,
MYSURU CITY, MYSURU – 570 011
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
2

BUILDING COMPLEX,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. NASRIN BANU
W/O A.ABDULLA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 147, 7TH CROSS,
A.J.BLOCK, N.R.MOHALLA,
MYSURU CITY,
MYSURU – 570 011. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1;
R2-IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2724/2015 (IS ARISING
OUT OF IN CR.NO.281/2014 OF NARASIMHARAJA P.S.,
NARASIMHARAJA SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 306 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE
THE III ADDL. I CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Charge-sheet is filed against the petitioners and accused

No.1 under Section 498(A), 306 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased

Mousina Banu had married accused No.1 about 11 years earlier

to the incident. In the wedlock, she had begotten four children.

She was residing along with accused No.1 in a rented house.

Gradually, accused No.1 also deserted her and she was residing
3

all alone with her children. It is alleged that the accused were

ill-treating and harassing her and were not providing her with

food and clothing and on 21.08.2014, the deceased herself rang

up to accused Nos.1 and 2 and asked him to come home

immediately as she was suffering from severe headache and

accused No.1 told her to do anything and thereby provoked her

to commit suicide, as a result, on 22.08.204, at about 9.00 a.m.,

the deceased poured kerosene oil on herself and committed

suicide.

3. A reading of the charge-sheet as well as the

statement of the father of the deceased clearly indicates that

about two years after the marriage, the deceased and accused

No.1 were residing separately. The further averments in the

charge-sheet indicate that at the time of the incident, the

deceased was residing alone with her children. Therefore, one

thing is clear that the present petitioners, namely, the mother-

in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased did not reside with the

deceased at any point of time after hear marriage. Under the

said circumstances, the allegation made in the charge-sheet that

all the accused persons ill-treated and harassed the deceased
4

and did not provide her with food and clothing appears to be

false and unbelievable. There was no obligation whatsoever on

the petitioners herein to provide food and clothes to the

deceased. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the

petitioners herein failed to provide food and clothing to the

deceased, the same does not amount to an offence under

Section 498A of I.P.C. in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

Therefore, the charge under Section 498A of I.P.C. cannot stand

against the petitioners.

4. In so far as the offence under Section 306 of I.P.C. is

concerned, the case of the prosecution is that immediate

provocation of the deceased to commit suicide was given by

accused No.1 himself. There are clear averments in the charge-

sheet that on 21.08.2014, the deceased called accused No.1 and

asked him to come to her house as she was suffering from

severe head-ache. It is alleged that accused No.1 told her to do

whatever she wanted and according to the prosecution this was

the immediate provocation for her to commit suicide. Under the

said circumstances, there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for

the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Section
5

306 of I.P.C. Therefore, considering all the above facts and

circumstances, in my view, the prosecution of the petitioners for

the offences under Section 498(A), 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. is

wholly illegal and an abuse of process of court and therefore,

cannot be allowed to continue.

As a result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in

C.C.No.2724 of 2015 (arising out of Crime No.281 of 2014) of

Narasimharaja Police Station, Narasimharaja Sub-Division,

Mysuru for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and

306 read with 34 of I.P.C. are hereby quashed only in so far as

the petitioners namely accused Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned.

Sd/-

JUDGE

dh