Mrs Rukiya vs The State on 15 December, 2017

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017

BEFORE

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

CRL.P. NO.6751/2016
BETWEEN

1. MRS. RUKIYA,
W/O K.MOHAMMED BASHEER,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/ AT # 4-51A, PREMIER COURT,
SHIVALLI VILLAGE – 576 104
UDUPI DISTRICT.

2. NASWIRA K. S.,
W/O ABDUL HAMID,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT # 2-35,
SULLIA TALUK, D.K DIST.

3. ABOOBKAR SIDDIQ SAKHAPI,
S/O C. K. ABDULLAH MUSLIYAR,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 3-269,
MARDALA HOUSE,
KALLAJE, ITHUR VILLAGE,
SUNKADAKATTE POST,
PUTTUR TALUK 574230
D.K DISTRICT

4. YASMIN
W/O ABU MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/ AT B H COMPOUND,
KANA, KATLA SURATHKAL,
MANGALURU 575014
2

5. ASHIK,
S/O K.MOHAMMED BASHEER,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT # 4-51A,
PREMIER COURT,
SHIVALLI VILLAGE 576104
UDUPI DISTRICT

6. DR. MOHAMMED HASHEER,
S/O MOHAMMED BASHEER, VIDE ORDER DTD.
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 15.12.2017
# 4-51, A, PREMIER COURT,
SHIVALLI VILLAGE – 576 104.
UDUPI DIST. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. ISMAIL MUSBA, ADV.)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH BAJPE POLICE STATION,
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, BENGALURU 560 001

2. MRS. AMINA SUHANA,
W/O MOHAMMED HASHEER,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SUHANA MANZIL,
JARINAGAR, BAJPE VILLAGE,
MANGALURU 574142 … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1
SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR DATED 04.04.2016 IN CR.NO.98/2016
ARISING OUT OF COMPLAINT DATED 04.04.2016
REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT BAJPE P.S., JMFC 2ND
COURT, MANGALURU CITY, MANGALURU FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 498A R/W 149 OF IPC AND
SEC.3, 4 OF D.P. ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
HEREIN PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND B.
3

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

ORDER

The petitioners and their counsel, respondent No.2

and her counsel are present before the court.

2. Heard the parties and the learned counsel

appearing for the parties.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has filed

an application in IA No.1/2017 to implead one Dr.

Mohammed Hasheer son of Mohammed Basheer, as

petitioner No.6, for which the learned counsel for the

second respondent has no objection. The proposed

petitioner No.6 is none other than the husband of the

second respondent. Therefore, the said application

deserved to be allowed. Accordingly, IA No.11/2017is

allowed and the proposed applicant is impleaded as

petitioner No.6. The learned counsel for the petitioners

is permitted to carry out the amendment in the petition

in the course of the day.

4

4. Petitioner No.6 is also present before the court.

There is no dispute that petitioner No.6 and second

respondent are husband and wife and petitioners 1 to 5

are the relatives of petitioner No.6. The dispute

between the husband and wife led to filing of a

complaint by the second respondent against all the

petitioners, which came to be registered in Crime

No.98/2016 for the offence punishable under section

498A read with Section 149 of IPC, which is sought to

be quashed.

5. In this regard, the petitioner No.6 and

respondent No.2 have filed a Joint Memo stating that

they have compromised the matter between themselves

and they have resolved their entire matrimonial dispute

between themselves and that the second respondent

has no objection to quash the entire proceedings in

Crime No.98/2016. In support of the said Joint Memo,

the second respondent has also filed an affidavit in

support of the contention taken up in the Joint Memo.

6. At this stage, it is worth to refer a decision of

the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Gian Singh Vs.
5

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

wherein the Apex Court has held thus:-

“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. ………….”

7. It is also worth to note here the subsequent

decision rendered in the case of Jitendra Raghuvanshi

and others -vs- Babita Raghuvanshi and another

reported in [(2013) 4 SCC 58], wherein the Apex Court,

particularly referring to the matrimonial disputes, has

laid down a law that the court can exercise powers

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to quash the

proceedings where exclusively they are pertaining to

matrimonial disputes, which reads as follows:-
6

“The inherent powers of the High Court
under
Section 482 Cr.PC are wide and
unfettered. It is trite to state that the
power under
Section 482 should be
exercised sparingly and with circumspection
only when the Court is convinced on the
basis of material on record, that allowing
the proceedings to continue would be an
abuse of process of court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceedings ought to
be quashed. Exercise of such power would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of
each case and it has to be exercised in
appropriate cases in order to do real and
substantial justice for the administration of
which alone the courts exist. Thus, the High
Court in exercise of its inherent powers can
quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or
complaint in appropriate cases in order to
meet the ends of justice and
Section 320
Cr.PC does not limit or affect the powers of
the High Court under
Section 482 Cr.PC.

Consequently, even if the offences are
non-compoundable, if they relate to
matrimonial disputes and the Court is
satisfied that the parties have settled the
same amicably and without any pressure, it
is held that for the purpose of securing ends
7

of justice, Section 320 Cr.PC would not be a
bar to the exercise of power of quashing of
IR, complaint or the subsequent criminal
proceedings. The Institution of marriage
occupies an important place and it has an
important role to play in the society.
Therefore, every effort should be made in
the interest of the individuals in order to
enable them to settle down in life and live
peacefully. If the parties ponder over their
defaults and terminate their disputes
amicably by mutual agreement instead of
fighting it out in a court of law, in order to
do complete justice in the matrimonial
matters, the courts should be less hesitant
in exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction.
It is the duty of the courts to encourage
genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes
and
Section 482 Cr.PC enables the High
Court and
Article 142 of the Constitution
enables the Supreme Court to pass such
orders.

In the present case, the appellants (the
husband and his relatives, accused under
Sections 498-A read with Section 34 IPC and
Sections 3 and 4, Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961) had not sought compounding of the
offences. They had approached the High
8

Court under Section 482 Cr.PC for quashing
of the criminal proceedings. The High Court
ought to have quashed the criminal
proceedings in question by accepting the
settlement arrived at by the parties
concerned.”

8. In view of the above said facts and

circumstances of the case, this case also falls under the

category as mentioned in the Hon’ble Apex Court’s

decision. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to

quash the proceedings.

9. Keeping in view of the guidelines of the Hon’ble

Apex Court, this court has applied its mind to the factual

matrix of this case and found that the dispute is

basically a private and personal in nature, and the

parties have resolved their entire conflict between

themselves.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Consequently, the FIR dated 4.4.2016 in Crime

No.98/2016 registered by the Bajpe Police, pending on

the file of JMFC II Court, Mangaluru City, Mangaluru, for

the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and
9

Sections 3 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is hereby

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PL*

Leave a Comment

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