January 2022 - Shades of Knife

Another false case filer bites the dust…

10. Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioner was married with complainant in July 2008. Even after her marriage with the petitioner, complainant was defending the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by her previous husband Asif Farooqi. Within about three years after marriage, her relation with petitioner came to an end in August 2011 as per her own admission recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph No. 14 of his order in Criminal Appeal No. 256/2016. There is yet another judicial finding that complainant had contracted into third marriage with one Asrar Ahmed and given birth to a child. The order also discloses that complainant initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act for short) in April 2012. The learned Sessions Judge has also recorded that it was proved by Ex.R7 that complainant had married for third time and ultimately, dismissed the petition. The Criminal Appeal filed thereon has also been dismissed with costs.

11. Not being satisfied, complainant initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2014. (C.Mis.No.526/2014) seeking maintenance for her and the child. The said petition has also been rejected so far as complainants claim was concerned.

12. Having thus suffered in the hands of complainant, petitioner also filed a private complaint in PCR No.1085/2016 alleging inter alia that complainant had suppressed her earlier marriage with Asif Ali Farooqi and when questioned about the same, she has filed the instant false complaint. Thereafter, she has married for the third time. With the said allegations, petitioner sought action against complainant and three others for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120A, 120B, 107, 108, 494, 496 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, FIR No.149/2016 has been registered on 11th August 2016 in Narasimharaja Police Station, Mysuru City. Records further disclose that complainant and other accused unsuccessfully challenged the said FIR before this Court in Criminal Petition No.1182/2017.

13. Petitioners application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge by recording that presence of accused as on the date of incident and whether marriage is void, cannot be considered at the stage of discharge.

14. A conspectus of facts narrated by the petitioner and the undisputed facts which can be gathered from the records lead to an irresistible inference that though complaint is filed alleging commission of offence under Section 498A IPC, it is, in fact the petitioner who has suffered an untold misery in the hands of the complainant.

15. It cannot be gainsaid that disclosure of a previous subsisting marriage causes immense mental pain and agony to a husband.

16. Complainant has, though unsuccessfully, driven the petitioner to various Courts unabatedly. It started with complainant initiating proceedings under the provisions of DV Act followed by proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Judicial findings have been recorded by the learned Trial Magistrates in both proceedings with regard to complainants conduct. Learned Magistrate adjudicating proceedings under DV Act has recorded that as per Ex.R7, complainants marriage with her third husband was proved. This finding has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal.

17. Suffice to note that records unequivocally disclose that complainant was respondent in a matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights initiated by her first husband when she got married with the petitioner. She has admitted this fact in proceedings before the learned Magistrate in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

18. This is a classic case in which a complainant by initiating criminal proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Section 498A IPC against the petitioner has abused the said provisions.

****

20. It is relevant to note that though the complaint contains the allegations recorded above, there is interpolation with regard to the date 03.08.2011, on which date she was allegedly confined in a room and attempt was made to kill her by pouring kerosene. Further, it is stated that Faizal made an attempt to hang her to a Ceiling fan. In the following sentence, it is stated that Faizal made her fall from a motor cycle and tried to kill her. The two allegations that Faizal attempted to hang the complainant and thereafter made her fall from the motor cycle contradict each other. If Faizal had really attempted to hang her, how did she escape from his clutches? No details are forthcoming in this behalf. However, even if it is assumed that the said allegation were true, it is not understandable why she sat on Faisals motor cycle.

22. Thus, the Complaint is full of unbelievable and self contradicting allegations. The first allegation of demand for Rs.3,00,000/- is said to have been made jointly by petitioner and his family members. The second allegation regarding demand of money to purchase a car is alleged jointly against petitioner and his sisters. Thus all allegations in the complaint are omnibus in nature and in the least, made jointly with other accused and there are no specific against the petitioner.

23. After investigation, admittedly police have not filed charge-sheet against accused No.2 to 6 namely Shahjahan Begum, Afzal Ahmed Khan, Parveez Ahamed, Anjum Nazeer and Siddique. Neither the prosecution nor the complainant have placed any other material which may suggest commission of any of the alleged criminal act/s by the petitioner. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that allegations against petitioner are designed to harass him.

Faisal Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka Mahila PS Bengaluru and Anr on 11 Oct 2019

Citations: [2019 SCC ONLINE KAR 3113], [2020 ILR KAR 130], [2020 KCCR 1 236], [2020 AIC 205 770], [2020 AIR KANT R 1 306], [2020 KANT LJ 1 323]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ded72464a932629f01c7297

Another false case victim was stopped from traveling abroad for his employment, but Supreme Court cut the tail of the false complainant and allowed his to travel to US of A.

The allegations in the complaint against the Appellant prima facie do not disclose, against the Appellant, any offence under Section 498A of the IPC, which contemplates cruelty, that is willful conduct of such a nature, as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to the life, limb or health (whether physical or mental) of the woman.
It is interesting to note that in the complaint, the complainant has given the address of her husband in U.S.A. in addition to his permanent address at Faridabad. The complainant has, for reasons known to herself, not made any reference in her complaint to the fact that the Appellant is a resident of Texas, where he is working. The complaint gives the impression that the Appellant is a resident of Faridabad.
From the complaint itself, it is patently clear that the Appellant does not reside in the same premises as his brother, being the husband of the complainant. The averments in the pleadings in the Courts below read with the complaint show that they do not even live in the same place. The Appellant works in Texas, U.S.A., whereas his brother lives and works in North Carolina.
The complainant has not given any particulars of the jewellery that had allegedly been taken by her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. There is not a whisper of whether any jewellery is lying with the Appellant. It is not even alleged that the Appellant forcibly took away or misappropriated the complainant’s jewellery or refused to return the same in spite of request. Taking custody of jewellery for safety cannot constitute cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.
There is not even any allegation against the Appellant of any demand or threat or torture for dowry or property. Failure to control an adult brother, living independently, or giving advice to the complainant to adjust to avoid vindictive retaliation from the Accused No. 1 cannot constitute cruelty on the part of the Appellant within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC.
There are no specific allegations against the Appellant of misrepresentation or concealment. There is not a whisper of the Appellant’s role in the marriage negotiations that took place in India. As observed above, the Appellant who is the elder brother-in-law of the complainant, resides in U.S.A. There is only a general omnibus allegation that all the accused ruined the life of the complainant by misrepresentation, concealment, etc. On the face of the averments in the complaint, the complainant’s husband made certain misrepresentations to her. The Appellant is not liable for the acts of cruelty, or any other wrongful and/or criminal acts on the part of his parents or brother.
There is nothing specific against the Appellant except the vague allegation that the Appellant and his mother, that is the complainant’s mother-in-law kept her jewellery. The only other allegation is that the Appellant had not done anything, when the complainant had spoken to the Appellant about his brother’s conduct and behaviour, he had told the complainant to remain quiet as Nitin could be a very bad enemy. In any event a deed of compromise has now been executed between the complainant and her husband being the Accused No. 1. A copy of the compromise settlement has been enclosed. The Appellant is not party to the settlement.
Having regard to the nature of the allegations, it is not understood how and why the Appellant should have been detained in India. In our considered opinion, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, erred in directing this Appellant not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

The apprehension that the husband of the complainant (Accused No.1) who had been working in the U.S.A. might leave the country cannot be ground to deny the Appellant’s prayer to go back to the U.S.A. to resume his duties in a Company in which he has been working for about 9/10 years. The High Court has also not considered the allegations against the Appellant. There is not even any prima facie finding with regard to liability, if any, of the Appellant to the complainant. There are no specific allegations against the Appellant.

Final nail in the coffin…

The instant application was strongly opposed by the State. This Court finds no merit in the contentions of the State. Ex facie, the allegations in the FIR do not disclose any offence under the provisions of the IPC referred to in the FIR. Ms. Monika Gusain stated that charge-sheet has been filed. She has not been able to point out what is the offence so far as this Appellant being the brother of Nitin Sharma, living in the USA is concerned. The repetitive allegations in the complaint are directed against the husband of the complainant, Nitin Sharma (Accused No.1) and his parents, particularly, his mother being the Accused No.2.

Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022

Other Sources:

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/personal-liberty-supreme-court-allows-brother-in-law-accused-in-section-498a-ipc-case-to-travel-abroad-189551

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/giving-advice-avoid-vindictive-retaliation-husband-not-cruelty-498a-ipc-supreme-court

https://lawtrend.in/498-a-ipc-advising-woman-to-adjust-with-husband-taking-jewellery-for-safe-custody-is-not-cruelty-rules-sc/

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: January 2022

Faisal Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka Mahila PS Bengaluru and Anr on 11 Oct 2019

Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022