Smt Fahmeeda Begum W/O Shabbir Ahmed Inamdar vs. The State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioners, Smt. Fehmeeda Begum (Accused No. 2) and Abdul Khadar (Accused No. 3), filed a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash proceedings initiated against them in Crime No. 59/2023, registered at Belagavi City Women Police Station. The said crime was registered based on a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, Smt. Seema, for alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323, 377, and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioners are accused of inducing Respondent No. 2 to marry Accused No. 1 (husband of Respondent No. 2 and brother of Petitioner No. 1) by misrepresenting his character, and Petitioner No. 1 is accused of instigating Accused No. 1 to demand money for settlement with his first wife.

Held

The Court held that the accusation against Petitioner No. 2 (Accused No. 3) that he and his wife induced Respondent No. 2 to marry Accused No. 1 by impressing upon her that he was a man of good moral character, ethics, and character, does not attract any of the offences for which the case was registered. The Court noted that merely stating someone is a good person in a matrimonial alliance does not amount to an offence, especially considering Respondent No. 2 received the matrimonial alliance through Shaadi.com where Accused No. 1 himself stated he was a divorcee and a Superintendent in Central GST, Belagavi. The Court also held that the accusation against Petitioner No. 1 (Accused No. 2) that her husband, under her influence, doubled his illegal acts and, at her instigation, demanded Rs. 10,00,000/- for settlement with his first wife, also does not attract any of the registered offences. Consequently, the Court found that the proceedings against both petitioners were required to be quashed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the allegations against Petitioner No. 2 (Accused No. 3) constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code, specifically concerning the inducement to marry Accused No. 1 by misrepresenting his character. The petitioners argued that the allegation against Petitioner No. 2 is limited to inducing Respondent No. 2 to marry Accused No. 1 by stating he had good character, which does not attract any alleged offences and constitutes an abuse of process. The State contended that there are averments in the complaint against Petitioner No. 2 for making a false representation about Accused No. 1. 2. Whether the allegations against Petitioner No. 1 (Accused No. 2) constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code, particularly regarding instigation and demand for money. The petitioners argued that the allegation that Petitioner No. 1, as the sister of the husband, instigated illegal acts and demanded money for settlement does not attract any offence. The State contended that Petitioner No. 1 abetted Accused No. 1, and in furtherance of this instigation, Accused No. 1 demanded money, and therefore, there are no grounds for quashing the proceedings.