SARAFARAZ HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioners are the accused Nos.1 to 3 in MCR No.213/2016 of the 1st respondent Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 506 , 34 , 504 , 447 , 114 , 366A of Indian Penal Code (IPC), who have sought for quashing of the said MCR against them. The present respondent No.2 is the complainant in the said complaint filed under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

(2.) The summary of the said complaint is that the complainant is the co-brother of one Smt. Noorisalma who is said to be the wife of the 1st petitioner herein (accused No.1). Her marriage with the accused No.1 is said to have taken place on 11.11.2012. Out of their marital relationship, the couple got a girl child born to them on 14.01.2015 who was named as Ayisha. According to the complainant the marital life of the said Smt. Noorisalma was not pleasant and she was constantly subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by her husband, and accused Nos.2 and 3 who are said to be the parents of the accused No.1. The elders in the community after noticing that their marital relationship was not cordial, granted them a divorce (Khulanama), as per their customs on 04.04.2016. Since the said Smt. Noorisalma was employed in the Office of Life Insurance Corporation (L.I.C.), she was leaving her girl child Ayisha for her care with her parents and also in the house of her Aunty for few days. That being the case, on 03.08.2016 at about 8.00 p.m., all the present accused who were three in number criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant and attempted to take away with them the girl child Ayisha who was playing. When the same was resisted and objected to by the complainant and his family members, they threatened them of dire consequences and put them to life threat. With these the complainant alleged the offences punishable under Sections 506 , 34 , 504 , 447 , 114 , 366A of IPC against them. The trial Court referred the compliant for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner in his argument canvassed only one point that, even according to the Khulanama, the girl child Ayisha was required to be given to the custody of her father i.e. accused No.1, once in every 15 days, i.e. on alternate Friday at about 10.00 a.m. till the next day i.e. Saturday afternoon 1.30 p.m. Thus, the question of accused wrongly attempting to take the possession of the girl child does not arise.