Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 90482 (KAR)

SMT SABAH AZEEZ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/5181/2023 · 2025-10-15

M I Arun

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5181 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT SABAH AZEEZ W/O LATE AZHAR NADEEM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT MIG-02, 11/A 2ND STAGE, KUVEMPU NAGAR HASSAN-573 201. ALSO AT: NO.23, 2 'B' CROSS SULTAN PALYA, R.T NAGAR BENGALURU-560 032. …PETITIONER (BY MISS. ANKITA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CITY POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023 2. SMT. MARIYA W/O LATE AZHAR NADEEM (DISPUTED) AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT: MIG-02, 11/A, 2ND STAGE KUVEMPU NAGAR, HASSAN-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. LETHIF B., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN CRIME NO.88/2022 DATED 24.05.2022 INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 466, 177, 120B, 477, 468 AND 34 OF IPC, PERTAINING IN HASSAN CITY P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023 ORAL ORDER Upon the death of one Azhar Nadeem, the petitioner herein as well as respondent no.2 made a claim to be the widow of the deceased and have made a claim to his estate. The petitioner denies the fact that respondent no.2 was married to the deceased. Respondent no.2 submits that she is the second wife of the deceased and that the deceased died in Mangalore Hospital, but the petitioner with the sole intention of knocking off the property of the deceased in entirety created false documents including the death certificate of the deceased and tried to misuse the same. In this regard, respondent No.2 made a complaint to respondent no.1-Police, which has resulted in a FIR being lodged under Sections 466, 177, 120B, 477, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against two accused persons of which the petitioner is one of them. The allegations in the FIR are as follows: "¢£ÁAPÀ 24.05.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 05.30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄjAiÀiÁ PÉÆÃA ¯ÉÃ|| Cdgï £À¢ÃA, 35 ªÀµÀð, JA.L.f-2, 2£Éà ºÀAvÀ, PÀĪÉA¥ÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ, ºÁ¸À£À gÀªÀgÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆj£À ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀĪÀgÀ UÀAqÀ Cdgï £À¢ÃA gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.05.2021 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆÃ«Ãqï ¤AzÀ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À PÀtZÀÆgÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ, F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ PÉÆÃmÉPÀgï mË£ï ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï ¤AzÀ ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, »ÃVgÀĪÁUÉÎ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀĪÀgÀ UÀAqÀ Cdgï £À¢ÃA gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ºÉAqÀw ¸À¨sÁ CfÃeï gÀªÀjAzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 11 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀªÁV ªÁ¸À«zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀĪÀgÀ UÀAqÀ£À D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®¥ÀmÁ¬Ä¸ÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ±ÀQèï Hgï gɺÀªÀiÁ£ï gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÀÆr ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ £ÀUÀgÀ¸À¨sÁ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023 19.01.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr ¸ÀAZÀÄ gÀƦ¹ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶֹPÉÆAqÀÄ Cdgï £À¢ÃA gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀvÀæ ¸À馅 ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è ªÀÄgÀt ¸ÀܼÀzÀ PÁ®A £À°è ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ gÀ«ÃAzÀæ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹, ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§AzÀ ¥ÀlÖ £ÀUÀgÀ ¸À¨sÁ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¤Ãr 23 £Éà ªÁqïð CeÁzï gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀĪÀgÀ UÀAqÀ Cdgï £À¢ÃA gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀĪÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆÃ¦ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸À¨sÁ CfÃeï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀQèï Hgï gɺÀªÀiÁ£ï CªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¥Àæ.ªÀ.ªÀgÀ¢ü." 2. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that, she is the lawfully wedded wife of the deceased Azhar Nadeem and respondent no.2 has got nothing to do with him. It is further submitted that she has not committed any forgery or concocted any documents as alleged and prays for the following reliefs: "(a) Quash the First Information Report registered by the Respondent No.1 Police in Crime No.0088/2022 dated 24.05.2022 insofar as the Petitioner is concerned for offences punishable under section 466, 177, 120B, 477, 468 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pertaining in Hassan City PS. pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan vide ANNEXURE-A. (b) Pass such orders that this Hon'ble Court be deems fit in the interest of justice." - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023 4. The learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that the allegations made in her complaint are all true and correct and the petitioner in collusion with accused no.2 as mentioned in the FIR has created false documents, including the death certificate of the deceased and the matter requires investigation. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.1-State submits that mere registration of FIR does not mean that a charge sheet will be filed against the petitioner herein. He submits that a thorough investigation will be conducted by recording the necessary statements from the petitioner as well as respondent no.2 and such other persons required and will also do necessary interrogation of persons necessary and only thereafter if sufficient material is found against the petitioner, then only charge sheet will be filed against her. 6. Admittedly, if the allegations made in the complaint filed by respondent no.2 are found to be true, it does constitute offence as alleged in the FIR. However, whether petitioner is guilty of the same or not can be determined only after - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40863 CRL.P No. 5181 of 2023 investigation is completed by the jurisdictional Police. Thereafter if a charge sheet is filed against the petitioner, the prosecution is still required to prove the case against the petitioner to have her convicted and the petitioner is having the liberty to defend herself in the manner known to law. However, as the allegations made are required to be investigated, I am of the opinion that, it is not a fit case to interfere at this stage. Hence, the following: ORDER Recording the submission of the learned High Court Government Pleader and with a direction to the prosecution to conduct investigation in the manner known to law and do the needful thereafter, the petition is hereby dismissed. Pending IAs., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG