SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sarmath Khan vs State By on 5 December, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. No. 8969/2016
C/W
CRL.P Nos. 6158/2015, 7595/2015 816/2017

IN CRL.P. NO. 8969/2016

BETWEEN
SARMATH KHAN,
S/O WAHAB KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/ AT NO.4, 5TH MAIN,
PARAMAHAMSA ROAD,
YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-570 021 … PETITIONER
(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI M., ADV. FOR
SRI. R. B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV.)

AND
1. STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
MYSURU-570 001

2. SMT. ASFIYA FIRDOSE,
D/O ABDUL RASHEED,
W/O SARMATH KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
R/AT NO.4, 5TH MAIN,
PARAMA HAMSA ROAD
YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-570 021.
AND ALSO R/AT MAIN ROAD,
AREHALLI, BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. PRABHUGOUD V. B., ADV. FOR R-2)
2

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.79/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MYSURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/Ss. 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS- 3 4
OF D.P ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

IN CRL.P. NO. 6158/2015
BETWEEN

1. KHAMER TAJ,
W/O ISHRATHULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.758,
SHIVARATRISHWARANAGARA,
MYSURU 570 015

2. MEHAR TAJ,
W/O ARIFULLA KHUTBUDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.335, 41ST CROSS,
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 082 … PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. RAJESHWARI M., ADV. FOR
SRI. R. B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV.)
AND

1. STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
MYSURU.- 570 021.

2. ASFIYA FIRDOSE,
D/O ABDUL RASHEED,
W/O SARMATH KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
NO.4, 5TH PRAMAHAMSA ROAD,
YADAVAGIRI,
MYSURU-570 021
3

ALSO AT : MAIN ROAD, AREHALLI,
BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DIST-573 151
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
SRI. PRABHUGOUD V. B., ADV. FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.79/2015 ON THE
FILE OF HON’BLE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT MYSURU AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 506
R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4
OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, BY ALLOWING THIS
PETITION.

IN CRL.P. NO. 7595/2015

BETWEEN

1. HASEENA JAN,
W/O WAHAB KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
NO.04, 5TH PRAMAHAMSA MAIN ROAD,
YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU-570 021.

2. ASIF KHAN,
S/O WAHAB KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
NO.04, 5TH PRAMAHAMSA
MAIN ROAD, YADAVAGIRI,
MYSURU-570 021. … PETITIONERS

(BY SMT. RAJESJWARI M., ADV. FOR
SRI. R. B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV.)

AND

1. STATE BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
MYSURU – 570 021.
4

2. ASFIYA FIRDOSE,
D/O ABDUL RASHEED,
W/O SARMATH KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
NO.04, 5TH PRAMAHAMSA
MAIN ROAD, YADAVAGIRI,
MYSURU-570 021
ALSO AT MAIN ROAD, AREHALLI,
BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DIST. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. PRABHUGOUD V. B., ADV. FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.No. 79/2015 ON THE
FILE OF HON’BLE IV ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C. AT MYSURU, AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.498A, 506 R/W 34 OF I.P.C. AND
SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT BY ALLOWING THIS
PETITION.

IN CRL.P. NO. 816/2017

BETWEEN

1. RASHEED,
S/O MADAR SAB,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O ATHIHALLI BELUR POST,
HASSAN DIST – 573 124

2. SHAMSAD,
W/O RASHEED,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/O ATHIHALLI BELUR POST,
HASSAN DIST – 573 124

3. ASFIYA FIRDOUS,
W/O SHARMATH KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O ATHIHALLI BELUR POST,
HASSAN DIST- 573 124
5

4. IBRAHIM, S/O BABAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O ATHIHALLI BELUR POST,
HASSAN DIST- 573 124

5. SADIQ,
S/O RASHEED,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/O ATHIHALLI BELUR POST,
HASSAN DIST- 573 124

6. AKHIL,
S/O BABAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/OF ATHIHALLI BELUR POST,
HASSAN DIST – 573 124

7. YASMEEN,
W/O HARUN,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/O NO 14, SHIVAJI ROAD,
N.R.MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 023

8. HARUN,
S/O MOHIDDIN,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/O NO 14, SHIVAJI ROAD,
N.R. MOHALLA, MYSURU – 570 023

9. SAD, S/O RASHEED,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/ OF ATHIHALLI,
BELUR POST HASSAN DIST – 573 124

10. ROSHAN, S/O BABAJAN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O ATHIHALLI BELUR POST,
HASSAN DIST – 573 124 … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUD V. B., ADV.)
6

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
SHO, V. V. PURAM P S.,
MYSURU CITY,
REP. BY GOVT PLEADER,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. SHARMATH KHAN,
W/O VAHAB KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/ AT NO 4, 5TH MAIN,
PRAMAHAMSA ROAD,
YADAVAGIRI, MYSURU CITY … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
SMT. RAJESHWARI M., ADV. FOR
SRI. R. B. SADASIVAPPA, ADV. FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR. NO.55/2014 AND
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. C.J. (JR. DN.) AND
J.M.F.C., JLB ROAD, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.1949/2014 (CR.
NO.55/2014) FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/Ss. 143, 147,
148, 448, 323, 324, 504, 506, 427 R/W 149 OF IPC.

THESE CRL.P’S COMING ON FOR
ORDERS/ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Sri. Prabhugoud V.B., Advocate undertakes to file

vakalath for Respondent No.2- Smt. Asfiya Firdose in Crl.P.

Nos. 8969/2016 and 6158/2015. He is permitted to file

vakalath within 10 days from today.

7

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned HCGP for the Respondent-State and also

the learned counsel appearing for other respondents..

3. These criminal petitions viz., Crl.P. Nos.

8969/2016, 6158/2015, 7595/2015, are arising out of a

common C.C. No.79/2015 pending on the file of the IV-

Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mysore,

registered against the petitioners therein lodged by the 2nd

respondent-Smt. Asfiya Firdose for the offences

punishable under Sections 498(A), 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and

also under Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ( for

short, ‘D.P. Act’). The petitioners in the said petitions have

sought for quashing of the said proceedings.

4. The petitioners in Crl. P. No.816/2017 filed by

Rasheed and his family members have sought for

quashing of C.C. No.1949/2014 arising out of Crime

No.55/2014 of V.V. Puram Police Station, Mysuru,

registered against them for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 504, 506, 427

r/w. 149 of IPC.

8

5. The petitioners in the said petitions,

particularly the petitioner by name Sharmath Khan in Crl.

P. No.8969/2016, who is the husband of the 2nd

respondent -Mrs. Asfiya Firdose, in the said case and other

petitioners in Crl.P. Nos. 6158/2015 and 7595/2015 are

all relatives of Sharmath Khan. The parties on both sides

of all the four criminal petitions have compromised the

matter and filed a joint petition along with an affidavit

before this court and the husband Sharmath Khan and wife

Asfiya Firdose have also filed their affidavit. In their joint

memo and affidavit, they have categorically stated that

the above said cases are arising out of family disputes

between themselves, essentially matrimonial dispute

between the husband and wife which made the wife to file

the criminal case in C.C. No.79/2015 against her husband

and his relatives. Husband also filed case against his wife

in Crl. P. No.8969/2016 for the offences noted above. The

parties have resolved their entire dispute between

themselves. The offences are not punishable either with

death or imprisonment for life. Therefore, there is no
9

legal impediment for this court to quash the said

proceedings.

6. At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision

of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh Vs. State

of Punjab and Another [ (2012) 10 SCC 303], wherein

the Hon’ble Apex Court has given certain guidelines with

regard to quashing of the proceedings whenever the

parties have entered into compromise. The relevant

portion of the said decision reads thus:-

“Held -Power of High Court in quashing a
criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and
different from power of a criminal court of
compounding offences under S. 320 – Cases
where power to quash criminal proceedings may
be exercised where the parties have settled their
dispute, held, depends on facts and
circumstances of each case – Before exercise of
inherent quashment power under S.482, High
Court must have due regard to nature and
gravity of the crime and its societal impact.
………….

Thus, held, heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity, murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or
10

under special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or offences committed by 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.

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

“But criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominatingly 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 it 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 proceedings…”

11

7. On careful perusal of the factual aspects of

this case, it is clear that the dispute between the parties

are essentially arising out of the family dispute and the

parties on both sides in all the petitions have resolved the

entire dispute between themselves hereinafter to live

happily in their life. In order to facilitate them, it is just

and necessary to allow the joint petitions and to quash the

criminal proceedings as prayed.

In view of the above, I pass the following:-

ORDER

The criminal petitions viz., Crl.P. Nos.
8969/2016, 6158/2015, 7595/2015, 816/2017 are
allowed. Consequently, the entire proceedings in
C.C. No.79/2015 (arising out of Crime No.31/2014
of Mahila Police Station, Musuru, registered against
the accused therein (petitioners therein) for the
offences punishable under Sections 98-A, 506 r/w.
34 of IPC and Sections 3 4 of D.P. Act) and as
well as C.C. No.1949/2014 (arising out of Crime No.
55/2014 of V.V. Puram Police Station, Mysuru,
registered against the accused therein (petitioners
herein) for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 448, 323, 324, 504, 506, 427 r/w.
149 of IPC) pending on the file of the pending on
12

the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC at Mysuru, are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KGR*

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2018 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please CLICK HERE to read Group Rules, If You agree then JOIN HERE

We handle Women centric biased laws like False 498A, Domestic Violence(DVACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA24, 125 CrPc, 307, 313, 376, 377, 406, 420, 506, 509 etc

Web Design BangladeshWeb Design BangladeshMymensingh