1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K N PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.6598/2017 c/w 9540/2017

CRL.P.6598/2017

Between:

1. MOHAMMED BIL ALI
S/O ALI BIN ABUBAKAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: PENSIONER.

2. RAFEEQUA SULTANA
W/O MOHAMMED BIL ALI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEW2IFE

PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 ARE
R/O H.NO.13-1-183/1/A, PLOT NO.72
SNEHAPURI COLONY
MOTINAGAR,ERAGADDA
HYDERABAD – 18. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI NAVEED AHMED, ADV)

AND

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

2. TARANUM IQBAL S.M.
2

D/O SYED IQBAL HUSSAIN
W/O NASAR MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O AT D2, DS MAX APARTMENT
L R BANDE MAIN ROAD
R T NAGAR POST
BANGALORE – 560032. … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MOHAMMED OWAIL SULTAN, ADV. FOR R.2)

THIS PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C. PRAYING
TO QUASH THE CASE IN C.MISC.NO.84 OF 2017 ON THE
FILE OF COURT OF 1 MMTC AT BANGALORE FILED
UNDER SECTIONS 12 OF THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN
FROM THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 AGAINST THE
PETITONERS HEREIN WHO WERE ARRAYED AS
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 2 AS PER ANNEXURE ‘A’.

CRL.P.9540/2017

BETWEEN:

1. NASAR MOHAMMED
S/O MOHAMMED BIN ALI
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SYDENY CITY
AUSTRALIA, PERMANENT R/O.H.NO.13-1-183/1/A
PLOT NO.72, SNEHAPURAI COLONY
MOTINAGAR, ERAGADDA
HYDERABAD – 18,
THROUGH HIS GPA HOLDER AND FATHER
MOHAMMED BIN ALI
S/O ALI BIN ABUBAKAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER

2. MOHAMMED BIN ALI
S/O ALI BIN ABUBAKAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: PENSIONER
3

R/O H.NO.13-1-183/1/A,
PLOT NO.72, SNEHAPURAI COLONY
MOTINAGAR, ERAGADDA
HYDERABAD – 18.

3. RAFEEQUA SULTANA
W/O MOHAMMED BIN ALI
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O.H.NO.13-1-183/1/A
PLOT NO.72, SNEHAPURAI COLONY
MOTINAGAR,ERAGADDA
HYDERABAD – 18. .. PETITIONERS

(BY SRI NAVEED AHMED, ADV.)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY D.J.HALLI P.S.
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE – 560 001.

2. TARANUM IQBAL S.M.
D/O SYED IQBAL HUSSAIN
W/O NASAR MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O AT D2, DS MAX APARTMENT
L.R.BANDE MAIN ROAD
R.T.NAGAR POST
BANGALORE – 560 032. ..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R.1,
SRI M O SULTAN, ADV. FOR R.2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CR.NO.137/2017 ON THE FILE OF 1ST RESPONDENT
4

POLICE STATION, D.J.HALLI, BENGALURU U/S 498(A) OF
IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT
AGAINST THE PETITOINERS NO.1 TO 3 WHO WERE
ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 AS PER ANNEXURE A
AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
21.04.2017 AT ANNEXURE – B.

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Sri Mohammed Owais Sultan, learned counsel

files vakalath for respondent no.2 in the above cases.

2. Petitioners in Crl.P.No.6598/2017 along with

their counsel and respondent no.2 and her counsel in

both cases are present before the Court. Petitioner in

Crl.P. No.9540/2017 is absent.

3. Joint memos are filed in both the cases

narrating common factual aspects.

4. Petition in Crl.P.No.6598/2017 is filed seeking

quashing of C.Misc.No.84/2017 filed by the 2nd
5

respondent against the petitioners under Section 12 of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Crl.P.No.9540/2017 is filed seeking quashing of

FIR in Crime No.137/2017 filed by the 2nd respondent

on the file of 1st respondent – D.J.Halli Police Station in

turn pending before the 11th Addl. CMM Court,

Mayohall, Bangalore City for the offences under Section

498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition

Act.

5. Joint memos and the factual aspects of the

case discloses that 2nd respondent – Smt.Taranum Iqbal S M

is the wife of one Mr.Nasar Mohammed, S/o Mohammed

Bin Ali, and their arose a family dispute between

themselves due to which it appears 2nd respondent has

filed the above said two cases against the petitioners.

As the matters are settled amongst the parties, there is

no legal impediment to quash the proceedings. In this

context, it is worth to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble
6

Apex Court in GIAN SINGH vs STATE OF PUNJAB

AND ANOTHER reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 wherein

it is held as under:

“-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

-But criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominantly civil
flavour stand on a different footing –
Offences arising from commercial, financial,
mercantile, civil partnership 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 whether to
secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the
7

criminal case is put to an end – If such
question(s) are answered in the affirmative,
High Court shall be well within its
jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding”.

6. This case is also essentially arising out of the

family dispute between the parties and the entire

disputes have been resolved between the parties and in

that context, joint memos have been filed. The parties

who are present before the Court have accepted the

execution of the joint memos.

7. In pursuance of the above said joint memos,

the petitioners are paying a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by

way of Demand Draft bearing No.502097 dated

06.12.2017 drawn in favour of the 2nd respondent,

issued by ICICI Bank, Hyderabad. 2nd respondent

acknowledges the receipt of Demand Draft. Respondent

no.2 also submits that she has already received an

amount of Rs.2,50,000/- by cash prior to filing of these
8

joint memos. 2nd respondent has no objection to quash

the proceedings as prayed by the petitioners.

8. In view of the above said facts and

circumstances, the following Order is passed:

ORDER

The Criminal Petitions are allowed. The case in

C.Misc.No.84/2017 pending on the file of I MMTC,

Bangalore filed under Section 12 of the Protection of

Women from the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also

in FIR No.137/2017 on the file of 1st respondent

D.J.Halli Police Station, Bangalore and in turn the FIR

registered on the file of 11th Addl. CMM Court,

Mayohall, Bangalore City for the offences under Section

498A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act

and all further proceedings in pursuance of the said FIR

are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE
Brn