1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
R
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CRIMINAL PETITION No.201429/2017

BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED AJAZ S/O QUAZI MOHAMMED ISHAQ
AGE: 32 YEARS OCC: BANK EMPLOYEE
R/O: 2-1-111, BEHIND TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
ANDROON QUILLA DIST: RAICHUR.
2. QUAZI MOHAMMED FAROOQ
S/O QUAZI MOHAMMED ISHAQ
AGE: 48 YEARS OCC: TECHNICAL OPERATOR
ZP OFFICE, DIST: RAICHUR.
3. SMT.ZABIN W/O QUAZI MOHAMMED FAROOQ
AGE: 35 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
ALL ARE R/O: 2-1-111,
BEHIND TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
ANDROON QUILLA, DIST: RAICHUR.
4. SMT.ZAKIRA BEGUM W/O MUNEER BAAG
AGE: 30 YEARS OCC: TEACHER: NAVODAYA SCHOOL
R/O: GOVT. QUARTERS, NEAR IB COLONY
DIST: RAICHUR.
5. MUNEER BAAG S/O AMEEN BAAG
AGE: 38 YEARS OCC: GOVT. EMPLOYEE
R/O: GOVT. QUARTERS, NEAR IB COLONY
AGRICULTURE OFFICE,
DIST: RAICHUR. … PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.ISHWAR RAJ.S.CHOWDAPUR, ADVOCATE)
2

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
(THROUGH SADAR BAZAR P.S. RAICHUR)
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH.

2. SYEDA SHAGUFTA NAAZ W/O MOHAMMED AJAZ
AGE: 21 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O: H.NO.12-11-52, ARABMOHALLA
RAICHUR.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.P.S.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1
BY SMT.ANITA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION

482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH

THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.16/2017 PENDING

BEFORE PRL. MUNSIFF AND JMFC COURT, RAICHUR DIST:

RAICHUR.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3

ORDER

The petitioners arrayed as Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6

respectively have filed this petition under Section 482 of

Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the entire

proceedings in C.C.No.16/2017 pending on the file of Prl.

Munsiff and J.M.F.C. Court, Raichur.

2. The complainant is one Smt.Syed Shagufta

Naaz who is none-other-than the wife of petitioner No.1-

Mohammed Ajaz. The charge sheet is filed against 06

accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A

and 504 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and

Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused No.2

is now reported to be no more.

3. The complainant/respondent No.2 herein is

represented by the learned counsel Smt.Anita Reddy and

the accused-petitioners are represented by the learned

counsel Sri.Ishwa Raj. S. Chowdapur. The learned counsels

appearing for the parties submit that, both the parties
4

have settled their dispute amicably and they have filed

their respective affidavits reporting the compromise. It is

further submitted that, the complainant do not wish to

continue the criminal case which she has initiated against

the petitioners herein and she has no objection for

quashing the proceedings. It is also submitted that, all the

cases between the parties have been already

compromised, except the present case, which is pending in

C.C.No.16/2017 on the file of Prl. Munsiff and J.M.F.C.

Court Raichur.

4. The petitioners as well as respondent

No.2/complaint viz., Syeda Shagufta Naaz are present

before the Court. They are identified by their respective

learned counsels. The complainant has no objection to

quash the criminal proceedings filed against the petitioners

herein. She admits having received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-

and 06 Tolas of Gold and another sum of Rs.30,000/- from

petitioner No.1, as permanent alimony. She submits that,

she has filed her affidavit on her own volition and without
5

any pressure from anyone and in terms of the said

affidavit the petition may be allowed. The affidavits filed by

both the parties are placed on record.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Jitendra Raghuvanshi and others /vs/ Babita

Raghuvanshi and another reported in 2013 (2) Crimes

90 (SC) has held that, the inherent powers of the High

Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code are

wide and unfettered. It is the duty of the courts to

encourage genuine settlements of matrimonial disputes,

particularly, when the same are on considerable increase.

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, for the purpose of securing ends of justice,

Section 320 of the Code, would not be a bar to the

exercise of power of quashing of FIR.

6

6. In the case of B.S.Joshi /vs/ State of

Haryana reported in (2003) 4 S.C.C. 675, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has upheld the powers of the High Court

under Section 482 of the code to quash criminal

proceedings, where dispute is of a private nature and a

compromise is entered into between the parties who are

willing to settle their differences amicably.

7. In the light of above decisions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, I am of the view that, the present criminal

proceedings initiated by respondent No.2/complainant

against the petitioners, which arise out of matrimonial

dispute is purely private in nature. In view of the amicable

settlement between the parties no purpose will be served

in continuing the said proceedings. The criminal

proceedings deserve to be quashed for the purpose of

securing the ends of justice. Accordingly, I proceed to pass

the following;

7

ORDER

The entire proceedings in C.C.No.16/2017 on the file

of Prl.Munsiff and JMFC Court, Raichur Dist: Raichur is

hereby quashed.

I.A.No.1/2018 is accordingly disposed off.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KJJ