Ismail Shariff vs State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4136/2017

BETWEEN

1. ISMAIL SHARIFF,
S/O LATE KHUDDUS SHARIFF,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

2. MUMTAJ UNNISA,
W/O LATE KHUDDUS SHARIFF,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.94,
MAHALINGESHWARA LAYOUT,
HOSUR LUSKAR ROAD, ADUGODI,
BENGALURU – 560 030.

3. SHAZIYA KHAN,
W/O ISMAIL SHARIFF,
D/O GULBAZ KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
R/O NO.9/1-4,
NEW BAMBU BAZAR,
COCK BURN ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 051 … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. C. R. ABDUL RASHEED, ADV.)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ADUGODI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU – 560 030.
REP. BY THE LEARNED
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2

HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. MRS. KHATUN BI @ SHAHEEN,
W/O ISMAIL SHARIFF,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.05,
NEAR SKR CHOULTRY,
SUBBAIANAPALYA,
BANASWADI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 033. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED SALMAN A., ADV. FOR R-2.
SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR
AND PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ACCUSED
PERSONS IN CR.NO.61/2016 FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCES
P/U/S 498(A) 494 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF
D.P. ACT REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 – ADUGODI
P.S., BANGALORE ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. C.M.M.,
BANGALORE.

THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioner Nos.1 3 and their counsels are

present before the court. Respondent No.2 is also

present before the court. The presence of petitioner

No.2 is dispensed with.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the
3

first respondent – State. Sri Mohammed Salman A,

learned counsel has filed vakalath for respondent No.2

before the court. Perused the records.

3. The petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2

have submitted a joint memo before this court and also

joint affidavit stating that they have compounded the

offences by way of compromise and by virtue of the

same, they have resolved the entire conflict between

them and that the respondent No.2 has no objection to

quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners

herein.

4. On the complaint lodged by the second

respondent, who was the wife of the first petitioner, a

criminal case has been registered in Crime No.61/2016

for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC

and Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

Subsequently, after filing of the charge sheet, the same

has been culminated inCC No.24089/2016.
4

5. In this regard, it is worth to mention here a

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in

2012(10) SCC 303 between Gian Singh Vs. State of

Punjab and Another, wherein it is observed that

under Section 482 of Cr.PC, the High Court can quash

the criminal cases even in respect of non-

compoundable offences. But, before exercising any

such inherent powers, the High Court must have due

regard to the nature and gravity of the crime and its

social impact. The Hon’ble Apex Court also categorized

some of the cases in which the parties can compound

the offences even if they are non-compoundable under

Section 320 of Cr.PC, before the High Court due to the

power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of

Cr.PC. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has specifically

observed that, –

“If the cases are overwhelmingly and
predominantingly Civil flavour stand on a
different footing – and if the offences arising
from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
5

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 to
secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the
criminal case is put to an end”.

6. The present case falls under the category

mentioned above. The dispute is purely a matrimonial

dispute between the parties and the wrong is purely

private and personal in nature. The parties have

resolved their conflict between themselves and filed a

joint memo. When the parties have compromised the

matter and settled their conflict, it is just and necessary
6

to quash the proceedings to enable them to live happily

in future. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

The petition is allowed. The Joint Memo dated

13.6.2017 filed by the parties is accepted. The FIR

registered in Crime No.61/2016 of Adugodi Police

Station and the entire proceedings in CC

No.24089/2016 pending on the file of VI Addl. CMM

Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore, for the offences

punishable under sections 498A 494 read with

Section 34 of IPC and also under Sections 3 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE
PL*

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *