- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
SRI SAYEED AHMED v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20THDAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8521 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI SAYEED AHMED
S/O LATE ABDUL SALAM
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/A NO.641, KHADRI MOHALLA M B ROAD KOLAR-563101 ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.PRABHUGOUDA. B TUMBAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE
CHIKKABALLAPURA
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001
2. SEEMA, D/O SYED MAQDOOM
AGED ABOUT 26 YERS
NO.649-15, S D S FLOUR MILLS
MUNICIPAL LAYOUT
CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA-562 101 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ROHITH.B.J-HCGP FOR R1
R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER U/S.482 CR.P.C
BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1108/2017 (CRIME NO.16/2016)
REGISTERED BY THE CHIKKABALLAPURA TOWN POLICE FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 354D, 292A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND NOW
1
2
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC, CHIKKABALLAPURA AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Respondent No.2 lodged FIR alleging that there was dispute pending with her brother. Petitioner and others restrained her and abused her in filthy language and petitioner-accused No.1 threatened to deface by throwing acid if he did not marry her. It was further alleged that the accused distributed and pasted pamphlets on the darga by making reckless allegation and thereby defamed her.
2. It was further alleged that the petitioner-accused have insulted her father. The police registered FIR for the offences punishable under Section 354 (d), 292 A, 506, 149, 509 of IPC. The Police after investigation submitted charge sheet before the learned magistrate. Learned Magistrate after accepting charge sheet took cognizance for the aforesaid offences. Taking exception of same, the accused are before this court.
3
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that except making omnibus and general allegations there is no specific allegation as against each of the accused as to how and in what manner they abused her in filthy language and also restrained her from proceeding further. Hence, in the absence of any essential ingredients to constitute the commission of aforesaid offence, the registration of the FIR against the petitioner/accused No.1 is without any substance.
4. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the state submits that allegation made in FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences and at this stage registration of FIR cannot be interfered with and the allegation made in FIR requires to be investigated and sought for dismissal of petition.
5. I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Perusal of the FIR lodged on 04.02.2016 discloses that there is no mention with regard to the date, time of alleged incident except making omnibus and general
4
allegation against the petitioner/accused that he along with other accused have abused her in a filthy language and also restrained her from proceeding further. The abusive language alleged to have been used by the Petitioner has not caused breach of public peace or commission of any other offence which is an essential ingredient to constitute the commission of the offences punishable under Section 506 and 509 of IPC.
7. No material is placed that the petitioner has pasted the pamphlet on the darga making derogatory statements against the Respondent No.2. Charge sheet is filed only on the basis of the statement of respondent No.2 and interested witnesses. In the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner/accused No.1 abused her in a filthy language and also threatened her with dire consequences, the Charge sheet filed against petitioner-accused is without any substance.
5
8. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the view that the continuation of investigation against the Petitioner will be an abuse of process of law.
9. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) Impugned proceeding in C.C.No.1108/2017 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura insofar it relates to petitioner/accused No.1 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BH
Alert