IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.9105/2016 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.8184/2016 IN CRL.P.NO.9105/2016 BETWEEN SHAHEEDA W/O ASGAR ALI SHEK, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, #NO.36, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH CROSS, K.R.LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, 6TH PHASE, BENGALURU-560078.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI YOGESH KUMAR U S, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THILAKNAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560041.
2. SMT NOOR ZAMA BEGUM W/O SRI ASGAR ALI SHAIK, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.206, 4TH FLOOR, 31ST CROSS, TILAKNAGAR, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560041.
RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1, SRI JAYANTH POOJARY, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR AND ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CR. NO.383/2016 INITIATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323,324,504,498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE II A.C.M.M., BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS PETR. ARE CONCERNED.
IN CRL.P.NO.8184 /2016 BETWEEN 1. SHAIK ABDUL SABU (ABDUL SAB) S/O. LATE ABDUL RAHMAN, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, #107, OLD NO.609, 30TH "B" CROSS, BEHIND ISLAMIA MASJID TILAKNAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041.
2. SRI. SHAUKATH SHAIK S/O. SHAIK ABDUL SAB, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, #107, OLD NO.609, 30TH "B" CROSS, BEHIND ISLAMIA MASJID TILAKNAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041.
3. SRI. MOHAMMAD ALI SHAIK S/O. SHAIK ABDUL SABU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT #670, 31ST CROSS, THILAKNAGAR, JAYANAGAR, NEAR MASHIDI ROAD, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041.
(BY SRI YOGESH KUMAR U S, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THILAKNAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 041.
2. SMT. NOOR ZAMA BEGUM W/O. SRI. ASGAR ALI SHAIK, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.206, 4TH FLOOR, 31ST CROSS, TILAKNAGAR, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 041.
...PETITIONERS …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1, SRI JAYANTH POOJARY, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR AND ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.383/2016 INITIATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323,324,504,489(A) R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE II ACMM, BANGALORE IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ‘ADMISSION’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for private respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
2. Learned counsel for both the parties files a joint affidavit of the petitioner and respondent No.2/defacto complainant.
3. The petitioner/accused No.2 and respondent No.2/defacto complainant are present before the Court. They are identified by their respective counsels.
4. The Joint affidavit reads as under:
“JOINT AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT NO.2 We, 1. Shaheeda, W/o Asgar Ali Shek, Aged about 27 years, #No.36, 2nd Floor, 4th Cross, K.R.Layout, J.P. Nagar, 6th Phase, Bengaluru – 560 078. 2. Noor Zama Begum, W/o. Sri. Asgar Ali Shaik, Aged about 40 years, presently residing at, No.206, 4th Floor, 31st Cross, Tilaknagar, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560041, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
1. We state that the No.2 of us i.e. the Respondent No.2 has given a Complaint dated 10- 9-2016 against the Petitioner herein arraying her as Accused No.2 in Crime No. 383 of 2016 pending before IInd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. We state that after filing the above Complaint, the Respondent No.2 has separated from her husband Asgar Ali Shaik and Respondent No.2 has married one Mr. Inayatulla Khan. We state that the Petitioner herein has married to Asgar Ali Shaik. We state that we both are leading respective married life with the respective spouses.
3. We state that, due to intervention of elders and relatives, the dispute between the Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner herein have been amicably settled, therefore, the Respondent No.2 herein has decided to withdraw all the allegations made in the Complaint dated 10-09-2016 in the Crime No. 383 of 2016 pending before IInd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Hence, the Respondent No.2 hereby withdraw all the allegations made in Complaint dated 10-09-2016. Further, the Respondent No.2 do not have any claim in any nature against the Accused No.2/Petitioner herein.
4. We state that we have filed this Affidavit with our own will and volition and there is no force or cohesion for filing this Affidavit from any persons, therefore, the Respondent No.2 does not have objection to quash the Criminal Proceedings against the Petitioner herein by allowing the present Petition.
Therefore, this Hon’ble Court maybe pleased to quash the Criminal Proceedings initiated in Crime No.383/2016 pending before IInd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 323,324,504,498A r/w Section 34 of I.P.C in so far as Petitioner is concerned.”
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for both the parties that respondent No.2/defacto complainant and her erstwhile husband-/accused No.1 in the present case have amicably settled their differences and thereafter, they have mutually agreed to dissolve their marriage according to their tradition and customs and that the dissolution of marriage has been recorded in the Bismilla Nagar Jamat. That thereafter respondent No.2/defacto complainant has got married with one Inayat Ullakhan and that presently she is residing along with her husband at Shanthinagara Doddaballapura. The Xerox-copy of the ration card of the said Inayat Ullkahan is furnished.
6. On a query to respondent No.2, respondent No.2 admits that she has resolved the differences with her erstwhile husband and that both have moved forward in their life leaving behind their differences and to have tranquility in life, she desires to give a quietus to the past dishonesty.
7. On a query to the petitioner, who is present before the Court, she would submit that after dissolve of marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1, she had entered into wedlock with accused No.1 and she is presently residing with accused No.1.
8. Though the offence under Sections 498-A and 324 of IPC are not compoundable offence, in view of the law laid down by full Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the joint affidavit and the prayer made by the parties is to be taken up for consideration.
9. Moreover, after reading the complaint, a query is posted to respondent No.2-complainant as to whether any grievous injuries were caused. To which, she would submit that no such grievous injuries was caused and that she was examined by the doctor and sent back to the home. The said submission of the complainant-respondent No.2 is placed on record.
10. In that view of the matter, the statement of respondent No.2-complainant does not support the charges leveled against the accused under Section 324 of IPC.
11. As could be seen that the parties have now moved ahead in their life and the continuation of the prosecution would only queer the pitch and would only result in more bad blood and hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer of the parties requires to be accepted and the petition ought to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered as Cr.No.0383/2016 by the Thilaknagar Police Station pending on the file of 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru insofar as it relates to the petitioner stands quashed.
In Crl.P.No.8184/2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.
12. This Court on the presentation of the joint affidavit by the petitioner/accused No.2 and the defacto complainant/respondent No.2 therein was pleased to allow the petition and quash the complaint insofar as it relates to the petitioner therein who is the second wife of the erstwhile husband of the defacto complainant.
13. In the instant case, the defacto complainant who is respondent No.2 has filed the affidavit and in the said affidavit it is deposed that petitioner No.1 is no more and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the brothers of her erstwhile husband i.e., accused No.1 and that they are employed in aboard. She further states that as she has decided to move on in life and having got married to another persons by name Inayat Ullakhan whose details are furnished in the above order desires to withdraw the complaint as against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and prays that this Court be pleased to accept the affidavit and to allow the petition by quashing the complaint insofar as it pertains to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 3 respectively. Petitioner No.1 having passed away, the complaint against petitioner No.1 stands abated.
14. In the light of the order passed in Crl.P.No.9105/2016 and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs State Of Punjab & Anr reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prayer made by respondent No.2/defacto complainant requires to be positively entertained in order to enable the parties to live peacefully in their life and to disregard bad blood subsisting amongst them.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The FIR registered as Cr.No.0383/2016 by the Thilaknagar Police Station pending on the file of 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru insofar as it relates to petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (accused Nos.4 and 3 respectively) stands quashed.
Ordered accordingly.
In view of disposal of the petitions, I.A.No.1/2016 filed in Crl.P.No.9105/2016 does not survive for consideration and hence, the same is rejected.
Sd/- JUDGE VM CT:HR