IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7232/2016 BETWEEN:
1. Sri.Ashfaq Ali, S/o Sardar Ali, Aged about 30 years, 2. Sri.Sardar Ali, S/o.Gulam Rasool, Aged about 52 years, 3. Mrs.Murtuza Begum, W/o S.Sardar Ali, Aged about 48 years, Petitioner Nos.1 to 3 are Residing at No.8, Opp. Idiga Road, 1st Cross, Bhoopsandra, R.M.V 2nd Stage, Bengaluru-560 094.
4. Smt.S.Sakeena Begum, D/o S.Sardar Ali, W/o Mir Wasi Mohammed, Aged about 27 years, Residing at BDA Quarters, Austin Town, Neelasandra, Bengaluru-560 047. ... Petitioners (By Sri.Mohamed Nasiruddin, Advocate) AND:
1. Smt.Kaneez Fathima, D/o Shahbul Hussain, Aged about 28 years, Residing at No.917, 2nd Main Road, Devanarapalya, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru-560 054.
2. The State of Karnataka by The Inspector of Police, Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Sanjay Nagar, Bengaluru-560 006, Rep. by S.P.P. High Court, Bengaluru. ... Respondents (By Sri.V.V.Balan, Advocate for R1-Absent; Sri.Vijayakumar Majage, Addl.SPP for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings filed by the 2nd respondent in C.C.No.8088/2016 which is pending before the VIII A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.2. Counsel for respondent No.1 is absent. Perused the records.
2. This petition is filed seeking to quash the charge sheet laid against the petitioners for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. According to the prosecution, after the marriage between petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.1 on 01.08.2010 she was subjected to cruelty and ill- treatment in the matrimonial home for not satisfying the dowry demand made by the petitioners.
4. Petitioners have produced a copy of the decree passed by II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in O.S.No.216/2015 whereby, the suit is decreed in terms of the settlement entered into between the parties before the Mediation Centre, Bengaluru. The memorandum of settlement appended to the said decree indicates that respondent No.1 admitted the Talaq pronounced by petitioner No.1/accused No.1. Clause 5 and 6 of Memorandum of Settlement read as follows:
“5. In view of the settlement entered into between the parties, the defendant hereby undertakes to take all lawful steps to request the jurisdictional Courts/Authorities to dispose all the pending criminal/civil cases as per law.
6. The parties further state that they have no other claims of whatsoever manner against each other including maintenance, permanent alimony either past, present and future, the parties hereto give up their rights or claim over the movables or immovable properties belongings to each other, either existing or to be acquired in future, as such all their claims are fully satisfied.”
4. In view of the decree passed by the Family Court based on the above settlement, the marriage between the petitioner No.1/ accused No.1 and respondent No.1 is annulled. The instant complaint came to be filed after the dissolution of the marriage between petitioner No.1/ accused No.1 and respondent No.2. Under the said circumstances, the allegations of cruelty and dowry demand leveled against the petitioner cannot be sustained. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Miyan & Others V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Criminal Appeal No.1048/2018) dated 21.08.2018 has held that when the marriage has been dissolved by a decree for divorce, the allegations constituting the offence under Section 498A of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter, charge sheet laid against the petitioners and consequent proceedings being illegal and abuse of process of court are liable to be quashed.
Consequently, Petition is allowed. Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.8088/2016 pending on the file VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE UN