IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Crl.P.No.2271/2019 BETWEEN:
MR. SYED TABREZ PASHA BAGDHADHI S/O SYED SHABEER PASHA BAGDHADHI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O NO.12/13, “VIGNEESH RESIDENCY” FLAT NO.302, 2ND CROSS SHANTHIVANAM, SANJIVININAGAR BENGALURU-560 092. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER R.T.NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560032 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SYEDA SIMRAN BAGDADI @ UMEYA ADIBA AGED 33 YEARS R/O NO.171, 9TH CROSS WILLIAM TOWN BENGALURU-560 046.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND INFORMATION DATED 11.09.2013, PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE AS FIR NO.298/2013, FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S.341, 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC.34 WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS ARAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.1 VIDE (ANNEXURE-A AND A1) AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This petition has been filed by petitioner-accused No.1 for quashing of the proceedings registered for the offence punishable under Section 341, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC (in Crime No.293/2013 (C.C.No.27663/2014) on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. When matter was listed for admission on 28.03.2019, a joint affidavit came to be filed for quashing of these proceedings. Said joint affidavit came to be placed on record and following order came to be passed:
“2. Today, a joint affidavit has been filed by both parties whereunder petitioner and second respondent have stated to the following effect:
“(a) We state that, the present petition was filed by the petitioner i.e., Mr. Syed Tabrez Pasha Bagdhadhi, seeking quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.293/2013, currently renumbered as matter bearing C.C.No.27663/2014, pending on the file of the Hon’ble VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
(b) We state that, due to the intervention of the counsel on record and well wishers, we have now resolved our issues and are willing to compromise the existing Lit.
(c) We state that, in furtherance to such compromise, we had filed a Joint Memo before the HON’BLE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, TRAFFIC COURT – IV, BENGALURU, in matter bearing Criminal Misc. No.254/2013.
(d) We state that, one such terms of such Joint Memo was that, the respondent herein i.e., Syeda Simran @ Umeya Adiba was to express no objection to the allowing of the present petition and consequently quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.293/2013, currently renumbered as matter bearing C.C.No.27663/2014, pending in the file of the Hon’ble VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
(e) The respondent No.2 herein states that, in view of the compromise entered into between the petitioner i.e. Mr.Syed Tabrez Pasha Bagdhadhi and the respondent No.2 i.e. Syeda Simran @ Umeya Adiba, the latter gives no objection to the allowing of the present petition.
(f) We state that, the present affidavit is being filed with free will and without any coercion.”
3. Sri.Bharath Kumar.V, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has produced a copy of Joint affidavit whereunder parties have settled their entire dispute as per the terms set out thereunder. Same is placed on record.
4. Parties are present before Court. Petitioner has identified second respondent. To establish the identity of second respondent, no material is placed and as such this Court would not be inclined to entertain this joint affidavit. At this juncture, second respondent submits that she would file a memo enclosing photocopy of Aadhar Card issued by statutory authority. Her submission is placed on record. It is made clear that if same is not filed, joint memo would not be accepted.”
3. As observed herein above, a doubt came to be raised by the Court with regard to identity of the 2nd respondent-complainant and person present before Court had agreed to file a memo enclosing photocopy of the Aadhar Card issued by the statutory Authority. This Court had placed her submission/undertaking on record and had made it clear that order accepting joint affidavit would not come into effect till such undertaking given to the Court is complied by her. However, on the next day i.e., on 29.03.2019, 2nd respondent-complainant appeared before Court and submitted that she did not sign the joint affidavit voluntarily or in other words, she had not understood the contents of the joint affidavit and she was made to accept the same under duress. Since it was an oral submission, this Court did not accept the same and had directed 2nd respondent-complainant to file proper affidavit and accordingly an affidavit came to be filed on 01.04.2019 by 2nd respondent whereunder she alleged that petitioner without disclosing as to what was transpiring before the Court, she was asked to affix her signature on the papers and without understanding as to what was happening, she had affixed her signature on the instructions of petitioner. She has further alleged that after verifying the case from website of this Court she came to know that petitioner had mislead her and as such, she sought for rejecting the compromise petition.
4. During pre-lunch session, this Court passed the following order:
“Smt.H.Haleema Ameen, learned member of Bar who is present before the Court is requested to assist the Court since, respondent No.2-Smt.Syeda Simran Bagadadi @ Umeya Adiba who is present before the Court submits that she is not in a position to engage the counsel.
Call the matter at 2.30 p.m.”
5. Smt. H.Haleema Ameen, learned member of the Bar, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, interacted with the 2nd respondent-complainant and submits that 2nd respondent-complainant has no objection for proceedings pending against petitioner being quashed and petitioner has also tendered her unconditional apology i.e., for the act of filing the affidavit dated 01.04.2019.
6. 2nd respondent-complainant has filed one more affidavit today and she is present before Court and also assisted by Smt. H.Haleema Ameen, learned counsel, on enquiry made by the Court has reiterated the contents of the joint affidavit and she has also submitted that she has no objection for her affidavit dated 01.04.2019 being rejected as withdrawn and for filing said affidavit she has expressed her remorse in the affidavit filed today and has also sought for leniency being extended by condoning her acts. She has also stated that affidavit filed today is without any force, threat, coercion and it is out of her own will and volition.
7. Learned counsel Smt.H.Haleema Ameen, who was requested to assist the Court, on a repeated query made to 2nd respondent, has also stated that on interacting with the 2nd respondent she is satisfied that she (complainant) intends to withdraw the affidavit dated 01.04.2019 and has also expressed her no objection for the proceedings pending against petitioner being quashed.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that affidavit filed today deserves to be accepted and same has been placed on record. 2nd respondent-complainant has also annexed photocopy of the Aadhar Card issued to her by the statutory authority and the same is placed on record.
9. Today, both parties have filed a joint memo whereunder petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- in two installments of Rs.15,000/- each on or before 20.04.2020 and 20.04.2021 respectively. Said memo is placed on record.
It is also stated and agreed to by the petitioner that he would perform marriage of their daughter beholding his status. Said undertaking is also placed on record.
10. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings pending on the file of VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, against the petitioner in Crime No.293/2013 (C.C.No.27663/2014) registered for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 r/w section 34 of IPC is quashed and petitioner is acquitted of the above said offence.
11. This Court places on record its appreciation for services rendered by Smt.H.Haleema Ameen, learned member of the Bar, who assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae and as such, the High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to issue cheque in her favour for a sum of Rs.3,500/-.
Sd/- JUDGE TL