IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6598/2017 c/w 9540/2017 CRL.P.6598/2017 Between:
1. MOHAMMED BIL ALI S/O ALI BIN ABUBAKAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC: PENSIONER.
2. RAFEEQUA SULTANA W/O MOHAMMED BIL ALI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC: HOUSEW2IFE PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE R/O H.NO.13-1-183/1/A, PLOT NO.72 SNEHAPURI COLONY MOTINAGAR,ERAGADDA HYDERABAD – 18. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI NAVEED AHMED, ADV) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. TARANUM IQBAL S.M.
D/O SYED IQBAL HUSSAIN W/O NASAR MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O AT D2, DS MAX APARTMENT L R BANDE MAIN ROAD R T NAGAR POST BANGALORE – 560032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED OWAIL SULTAN, ADV. FOR R.2) THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CASE IN C.MISC.NO.84 OF 2017 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF 1 MMTC AT BANGALORE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 12 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 AGAINST THE PETITONERS HEREIN WHO WERE ARRAYED AS RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 2 AS PER ANNEXURE ‘A’.
CRL.P.9540/2017 BETWEEN:
1. NASAR MOHAMMED S/O MOHAMMED BIN ALI PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SYDENY CITY AUSTRALIA, PERMANENT R/O.H.NO.13-1-183/1/A PLOT NO.72, SNEHAPURAI COLONY MOTINAGAR, ERAGADDA HYDERABAD – 18, THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER AND FATHER MOHAMMED BIN ALI S/O ALI BIN ABUBAKAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER 2. MOHAMMED BIN ALI S/O ALI BIN ABUBAKAR AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC: PENSIONER R/O H.NO.13-1-183/1/A, PLOT NO.72, SNEHAPURAI COLONY MOTINAGAR, ERAGADDA HYDERABAD – 18.
3. RAFEEQUA SULTANA W/O MOHAMMED BIN ALI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O.H.NO.13-1-183/1/A PLOT NO.72, SNEHAPURAI COLONY MOTINAGAR,ERAGADDA HYDERABAD – 18. .. PETITIONERS (BY SRI NAVEED AHMED, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY D.J.HALLI P.S.
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. TARANUM IQBAL S.M. D/O SYED IQBAL HUSSAIN W/O NASAR MOHAMMED AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCC: HOUSEWIFE R/O AT D2, DS MAX APARTMENT L.R.BANDE MAIN ROAD R.T.NAGAR POST BANGALORE – 560 032. ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R.1, SRI M O SULTAN, ADV. FOR R.2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.137/2017 ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE STATION, D.J.HALLI, BENGALURU U/S 498(A) OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AGAINST THE PETITOINERS NO.1 TO 3 WHO WERE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 AS PER ANNEXURE A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.04.2017 AT ANNEXURE – B.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Sri Mohammed Owais Sultan, learned counsel files vakalath for respondent no.2 in the above cases.
2. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.6598/2017 along with their counsel and respondent no.2 and her counsel in both cases are present before the Court. Petitioner in Crl.P. No.9540/2017 is absent.
3. Joint memos are filed in both the cases narrating common factual aspects.
4. Petition in Crl.P.No.6598/2017 is filed seeking quashing of C.Misc.No.84/2017 filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Crl.P.No.9540/2017 is filed seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.137/2017 filed by the 2nd respondent on the file of 1st respondent – D.J.Halli Police Station in turn pending before the 11th Addl. CMM Court, Mayohall, Bangalore City for the offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Joint memos and the factual aspects of the case discloses that 2nd respondent – Smt.Taranum Iqbal S M is the wife of one Mr.Nasar Mohammed, S/o Mohammed Bin Ali, and their arose a family dispute between themselves due to which it appears 2nd respondent has filed the above said two cases against the petitioners. As the matters are settled amongst the parties, there is no legal impediment to quash the proceedings. In this context, it is worth to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in GIAN SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein it is held as under:
“-Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or under special statutes like Prevention of Corruption Act or offences committed by public servants while working in their capacity as public servants, cannot be quashed even though victim or victim’s family and offender have settled the dispute – Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society -But criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour stand on a different footing – Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings - High Court, in such cases, must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between parties and whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case is put to an end – If such question(s) are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding”.
6. This case is also essentially arising out of the family dispute between the parties and the entire disputes have been resolved between the parties and in that context, joint memos have been filed. The parties who are present before the Court have accepted the execution of the joint memos.
7. In pursuance of the above said joint memos, the petitioners are paying a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft bearing No.502097 dated 06.12.2017 drawn in favour of the 2nd respondent, issued by ICICI Bank, Hyderabad. 2nd respondent acknowledges the receipt of Demand Draft. Respondent no.2 also submits that she has already received an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- by cash prior to filing of these joint memos. 2nd respondent has no objection to quash the proceedings as prayed by the petitioners.
8. In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the following Order is passed:
ORDER The Criminal Petitions are allowed. The case in C.Misc.No.84/2017 pending on the file of I MMTC, Bangalore filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also in FIR No.137/2017 on the file of 1st respondent D.J.Halli Police Station, Bangalore and in turn the FIR registered on the file of 11th Addl. CMM Court, Mayohall, Bangalore City for the offences under Section 498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and all further proceedings in pursuance of the said FIR are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Brn