IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3040/2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2851/2019 IN CRL.P. NO.3040/2018: BETWEEN:
1. FAREEDA BEGUM AGE ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O LATE MUNEER PASHA.
2. BASEER PASHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O LATE MUNEER PASHA.
PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT NO.17, 3RD FLOOR KOUSAR NAGAR, 1ST MAIN MAX ROAD, R.T. NAGAR POST BANGALORE – 560 032.
(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY BHARATHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
2. SMT. SARAH SABAHATH ... PETITIONERS D/O LATE SYED MUNEER AHMED AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.9, 4TH CROSS E STREET, BHARTHINAGAR THIMMAYA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001.
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. SIRAJUDDIN., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CR.NO.50091/2017 IN THE FILE OF XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE DATED:25.10.2016 AT ANNEXURE A AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN CRL.P. NO.2851/2019: BETWEEN:
NAZEER PASHA S/O LATE MUNEER PASHA AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.169, 3RD FLOOR 6TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY BHARTHINAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGLAORE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA – 01.
2. SMT. SARAH SABAHATH D/O LATE SYED MUNEER AHMED AGE ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.9, 4TH CROSS E STREET, BHARATHINAGAR THIMMAYA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHRAGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.50091/2017 IN THE FILE OF THE XI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE DATED:25.10.2016 AT ANNEXURE-A CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.142/2016 IN THE FILE OF IX A.C.M.M., BANGALORE DATED:13.06.2016 U/S 498A R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT AT ANNEXURE-B AND IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED:13.06.2016 AT ANNEXURE-C IN BHARTINAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners who are arraigned as accused in C.C.No.50091/2017 are before this Court for quashing of said proceedings which has been registered by first respondent for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by Bharathinagar Police Station pending on the file of XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
2. Second respondent and first accused (petitioner in Crl.P.No.2851/2019 along with second petitioner in 3040/2018) are before present before Court.
3. Today joint memos have been filed in both petitions whereunder parties have stated that dispute between accused No.1 and second respondent which relates to matrimonial dispute has been settled and by way of permanent alimony accused No.1 has paid a sum of `10,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft as morefully stated in paragraph 7 of the joint memo to second respondent-complainant. It is further submitted by both parties that in light of such settlement arrived at they have no further claims against each other and second respondent/complainant, who is present before Court submits that she has no objection for proceedings pending against petitioners being quashed, since she does not intend to prosecute her complaint.
4. Though it is stated that marriage between parties has come to an end by mutual divorce agreement entered into by Kulanama, this Court is not expressing any opinion in that regard since said issue is not before this Court nor this Court would be in a position to recognize said Kulanama.
5. Be that as it may. Second respondent/ complainant who is present before Court having submitted that she does not intend to prosecute the complaint and she has voluntarily agreed to withdraw complaint lodged by her against petitioners and having reiterated the contents of joint memos by way of verifying affidavit, this Court is of the considered view that there is no impediment to accept the same. She also submits that out of her own free will without any force, threat or coercion she has affixed her signature to the joint memos and she has no objection for said proceedings being quashed. To establish identity of the parties present before Court, photocopies of identity cards issued by statutory authority is produced along joint memo. In token of having identified the parties present before Court, respective learned Advocates have also affixed their signatures to joint memo as well as photocopies of identity cards.
6. In the light of aforestated facts and keeping in mind principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of GIAN SINGH vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of further proceedings against petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose particularly when second respondent/ complainant herself has retraced her steps in withdrawing the allegations made in the complaint and as such it would not sub serve the ends of justice and would only be waste of precious judicial time. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Crl.P.Nos.3040/2018 c/w 2851/2019 are allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C.No.50091/2017 registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, by Bharathinagar Police Station, on the file of XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, is hereby quashed and petitioners are acquitted of aforesaid offence.
All pending applications stands consigned to records.
SD/- JUDGE DR