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,
5partnership 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*