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