1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO. 8286/2017
BETWEEN
1. MOHAMMED AMEENULLA,
S/O LATE MOHAMMED ANWAR,
AGED 31 YEARS,
R/AT NO.15, 5TH CROSS,
ZAFRULLA LAYOUT GOVINDAPURA,
NEAR ABOD APARTMENT,
ARABIC COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU 560045.
2. ABEEBUNNISA,
W/O LATE MOHAMMED ANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.15, 5TH CROSS,
ZAFRULLA LAYOUT GOVINDAPURA
NEAR ABOD APARTMENT ARABIC
COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU 560045.
3. ZABEENA TAJ,
D/O LATE MOHAMMED ANWAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.15, 5TH CROSS,
ZAFRULLA LAYOUT GOVINDAPURA
NEAR ABOD APARTMENT ARABIC
COLLEGE POST, BENGALURU 560045.
4. HIDAYATH ULLA,
S/O LATE MOHAMMED ANWAR,
R/AT NO.15, 5TH CROSS,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
ZAFRULLA LAYOUT GOVINDAPURA
NEAR ABOD APARTMENT ARABIC,
COLLEGE POST BENGALURU 560045.
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KHADAR BASHA H., ADV.)
2
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAK REP. BY,
KADUGONDANA HALLI POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU 560 045.
2. ZAREENA BEGUM,
W/O MOHAMMED AMEENULLA,
D/O MOHAMMED MUSTAFA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/AT NO.30, 2ND FLOOR,
5TH CROSS, SYED BLOCK,
HAL POST, BENGALURU 560017.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1.
SRI. SAMEER AHMED, ADV. FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.278/2017 OF
KADUGONDANA HALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU
CITY WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE XI
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
MAYO HALL BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri Sameer Ahmed, learned counsel files vakalath
for respondent No.2 – Zareena Begum.
2. Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and their
respective counsels are present before the court. The
second respondent has filed an affidavit before this
court stating that the parties have compromised the
3
matter as the offence punishable u/s.498A of IPC is
non-compoundable of offence. The parties have
approached this court seeking quashing of the
proceedings in Crime No.278/2017 which is pending on
the file of the respondent No.1 Kadugondanahalli police
station.
3. As could be seen from the entire materials on
record, the petitioner No.1 is the husband of second
respondent. There were some matrimonial differences
between the husband and wife which led to filing of
complaint by the second respondent before the first
respondent police for the offence punishable under
section 498A and 324 of IPC and Sections 3 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act.
4. The dispute is essentially a matrimonial dispute
and the same has been resolved between themselves.
At this stage, it is worth to note here a decision
reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 between Gian Singh
Vs. State of Punjab and Another wherein the Apex
Court has held thus:-
4
“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 under special statutes like
Prevention of Corruption Act or offences
committed by public servants while
working in their capacity as 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.”
5. It is also worth to note here the subsequent
decision rendered in the case of Jitendra
Raghuvanshi and others -vs- Babita Raghuvanshi
5
and another reported in (2013) 4 SCC 58, wherein
the Hon’ble 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:-
” 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
6meet 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
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
7
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
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.”
6. 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
decisions. Therefore, there is no legal impediment to
quash the proceedings.
7. 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.
8
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The
affidavit filed by the second respondent is accepted and
placed on record. Consequently, the proceedings in
Crime No.278/2017 registered by the Kadugondanahalli
Police, pending on the file of the XI Addl. CMM, Mayo
hall, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*
