IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7857/2017 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7616/2017 IN CRL.P.NO.7857/2017: BETWEEN:
JAMEEL AHMED MAQHBOOL S/O A. MAQHBOOL AHMED AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT 12/A, 14TH ‘B’ CROSS 4TH MAIN, I.A.S. OFFICERS COLONY 6TH SECTOR, H.S.R. LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 034.
NOW R/AT NO.913, MCMULLER DR. PLANO TEXAS 75075 UNITES STATES-75075.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. HASHMATH PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIVALA POLICE BANGALORE-560 068. (REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BANGALORE-01).
2. SYEDA AFSHAN W/O JAMEEL AHMED MAQHBOOL AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.184, 10TH CROSS SHIVAJI ROAD, N.R. MOHALLA MYSURU CITY-570 007.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. K.G. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.19410/2017 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.1929/2015 OF MADIVALA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) AND 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
IN CRL.P.NO.7616/2017: BETWEEN:
1. BASHEERA KHATOON W/O A. MAQHBOOL AHMED AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT 12/A, I.A.S OFFICERS COLONY, 14TH ‘B’ MAIN, 4TH CROSS 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 034.
2. A MAQHBOOL AHMED S/O MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT 12/A, I.A.S OFFICERS COLONY, 14TH ‘B’ MAIN, 4TH CROSS 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 034.
3. DR. RIZWANA BEGUM W/O DR. ZAHEED AHMED AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.35, OLD NO.230/25 6TH MAIN, MINNAJ NAGAR J.P NAGAR POST BANGALORE-560 078.
4. DR. SAMEENA BEGUM W/O IMDAD REHMATULLA SAHRIEF AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.11, 3RD MAIN 20TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA BANGALORE-560 030.
5. DR. MAQHBOOL IQBAL AHMED S/O MAQHBOOL AHMED AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT 12/A, I.A.S OFFICERS COLONY, 14TH ‘B’ MAIN, 4TH CROSS 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 034.
6. IMDAD SHARIEF REHMATULLA SHARIEF S/O REHMATULLA SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.11, 3RD MAIN 20TH CROSS, LAKKASANDRA BANGALORE-560 030.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.HASHMATH PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MADIVALA POLICE BANGALORE-560 068 (REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) 2. SYEDA AFSHAN W/O JAMEEL AHMED MAQHBOOL AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO.184, 10TH CROSS SHIVAJI ROAD N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY-570 007.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.G. KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.19410/2017 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. C.M.M. BANGALORE WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.1929/2015 OF MADIVALA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners who have been arraigned as accused in C.C.No.19410/2017 are seeking for quashing of said proceedings, which had been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and is pending on the file if III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
2. I have heard Sri.Hashmath Pasha, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri.S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 – State and Sri.Kumara K.G., learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2. Perused the records.
3. Marriage between second respondent and petitioner (in Crl.P.No.7857/2017) took place on 27.01.2011 as per prevailing Islamic law and customs. Both of them were residing together as husband and wife in India for a while and thereafter were living in United States of America. Subsequently, in the year 2015 second respondent is said to have returned from USA to India and lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Women’s Police Station alleging that there has been a demand for dowry and as a result cruelty was inflicted upon her and said complaint came to be registered in Cr.No.74/2015 and after investigation matter came to be transferred to Madivala Police Station, who later filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences in C.C.No.19410/2017. Said proceedings are now pending on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, which petitioners are seeking for quashing.
4. Today a Joint Memo has been filed in Crl.No.7616/2017 by the petitioners and second respondent, whereunder complainant-second respondent without any condition, on her own accord has come forward to compound the offences, which came to be registered on the basis of complaint lodged by her against the petitioners. She has also filed an affidavit deposing aforestated facts and has also agreed to compound the offences alleged against petitioners and has consented for quashing of the criminal proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C.No.19410/2017. Likewise, she has also filed an affidavit in Crl.P.No.7857/2017 reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in Crl.P.No.7616/2017 and also stating thereunder that she is not interested in prosecuting the complaint lodged by her against petitioners now pending in C.C.No.19410/2017 namely, petitioner (husband), in- laws and relatives of her husband namely, accused Nos.2 to 7. She has also stated that she is withdrawing the proceedings initiated by her in Crl.Mic.No.1929/2015, which proceedings has been initiated by her by filing a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Said affidavits are placed on record.
5. The efforts made by this Court to bring about rapprochement between second respondent- complainant and petitioners, have been futile. Smt.Irfana, learned counsel practicing at this Bar was requested to ascertain as to whether any settlement can be brought about between complainant and her estranged husband and she has reported that despite all efforts no settlement could be brought between them. In other words, result of such exercise been negative.
6. Second respondent – complainant, who is present before Court submits that she has voluntarily agreed to withdraw her complaint and she is not interested in prosecuting her complaint and all proceedings pursuant to it and without any force threat or coercion she has filed the affidavits indicating thereunder that she intends to withdraw the complaint lodged by her against petitioners. In order to establish the identities of the parties present before Court, a memo is filed enclosing photocopies of the identity cards issued by statutory authorities, which is also duly signed by their respective learned Advocates. Same is placed on record.
7. In the light of aforestated facts, this Court is of the considered view that continuation of further proceedings would not serve any fruitful purpose and a memo is also filed by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner reporting thereunder that a sum of `3,50,000/- is paid by the petitioners by way of Demand Draft drawn in the name of second respondent- complainant. Said memo is placed on record. In view of law laid down by 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 in C.C.No.19410/2017 and Crl.Misc.No.1929/2015 would be an abuse of process of law.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition are hereby allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending against petitioners in C.C.No.19410/2017 on the file of III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mangalore, is hereby quashed.
(iii) Petitioners are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1964.
(iv) Petitioners are at liberty to produce the copy of this order in Crl. Misc. No.1929/2015 for jurisdictional Court passing appropriate orders in view of complainant (Smt.Syeda Afshan) having agreed to withdraw said proceedings also.
SD/- JUDGE DR