K M JAFFER ALI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 9-9-2005 passed by the XII Addl. City Civil and Sessions judge, Bangalore, in S. C. No. 638/2004 rejecting the application filed by the revision petitioners-accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6 under section 227, Cr. P. C. seeking their discharge is challenged before this Court in this revision petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts which are necessary for the disposal of this petition are that one Tabassum kausar and accused No. 1 Noushad AH had fallen in love with each other. Deceased tabassum and her parents along with other family members were staying together at ulsoor. In front of their house, accused No. 1-Noushad AH and his family members were staying. Twice, both deceased-Tabassum and noushad AH went away from their respective houses and stayed elsewhere for four to five days. After they returned, on each occasion, the parents and relatives of Tabassum insisted the parents and relatives of Noushad AH to arrange their marriage. Eventually, the marriage was celebrated on 5-7-2002.

(3.) ON 23-9-2002, the brother of deceased tabassum lodged a complaint before the K. G. Halli Police stating that his sister was killed by her husband-accused No. 1 and the other accused-the revision petitioners herein have ill treated the deceased demanding dowry in the form of cash and jewellery. He has narrated, in the complaint lodged, the love affair of Noushad AH and deceased Tabassum, the dispute pertaining to insistence of accused No. 1 and his family members the revision petitioners herein to bring dowry and the harassment meted out by them. He has further stated that there was a panchayat held on 21-9-2002 in a Mosque wherein it was decided that tabassum should stay with accused No. 1 and his family members (the revision petitioners herein) during night time and during day time she should be permitted to stay along with her parents. It was during this period, when she was staying during the daytime along with her parents, the deceased is stated to have narrated the ill treatment meted out to her by her parents-in-law including her husband. The further case, as could be seen from the complaint is that soon after the panchayat was held on 21-9-2002 deceased was taken to Mehboob nagar, Govindapura by her husband accused no. 1 and they were staying there until 23-9-2002 when she was killed. It is thus clear that at the time when the incident leading to the death of Tabassum took place she was not staying with her parents-in-law and other family members. The complaint does not attribute any homicidal act to the revision petitioners. It is not stated in the complaint that the petitioners along with accused No. 1 had hatched any conspiracy or plan to kill the deceased. On the other hand, the plain reading of the complaint discloses that the role played by the revision petitioners is restricted to ill treatment and harassment meted out to the deceased. In addition, it is against accused No. 1 the accusation of committing murder of deceased is made.