1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA
CRL.P. NO.3113/2018
BETWEEN
1. NAEEM
S/O SHAHABUDDIN SUTAR
AGE 33 YEARS OCC ASST ENGINEER
R/AT KARAN BELLA VISTA APARTMENT
B-WING FLAT NO.203
NEAR ANNA SAHEB MAGAR VEGETABLE
MARKET, PUNE-SOLAPUR ROAD
MANJARI-412 307, HAVELI TALUKA
PUNE-DIST. MAHARASTRA-STATE
2. SHAHABUDDIN SUTAR
S/O JAINUDDIN SUTAR
AGE 66 YEARS,
OCC BUSINESS AGRICULTURE
3. SMT BISMILLA
W/O SAHABUDDIN SUTAR
AGE 54 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE
PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE BOTH
R/O 227/1, BAJARPET
CHITINIS CHOWK HUPARI-416 203
DIST KOLHAPUR MAHARASTRA STATE
4. SMT RASHIDA
W/O NURUDDIN SUTAR
AGED 44 YEARS HOUSE WIFE
R/O MARATI SHALACHYA MAGE
MALBAGH SHIRDHON-416 121
DIST KOLHAPUR MAHARASTRA STATE
5. SHAMSUDDIN
S/O JAINUDDIN SUTAR
2
AGE 52 YEARS OCC-AGRICULTURE
R/AT NO.389/A1/1 MANAGER
RENEDAL, 416 203
DIST KOLHAPUR MAHARASTRA STATE
6. DR SHAKIL
S/O SHABUDDIN SUTAR
AGE 35 YEARS OCC-DOCTOR
7. DR JASMIN
W/O DR SHAKIL SUTAR
AGE 32 YEARS OCC-DOCTOR
PETITIONERS NO.6 7 ARE BOTH
R/AT WONDER-II PADMAPOOJA PURAM
FLAT NO.405 NEAR WIINS HOSPITAL
NAGALA PARK KOLHAPUR
DISTRICT-KOLHAPUR
8. PAPALAL
S/O DADA MUJAWAR
AGE 60 YEARS,
OCC BUSINESS /AGRICULTURE
9. SMT SHAHANAJ
W/O PAPALAL MUJAWAR
AGE 53 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE
10. ASIF
S/O PAPALAL MUJAWAR
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS
11. ARSHAD
S/O PAPALAL MUJAWAR
AGE 28 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS
PETITIONERS NO.8, 9, 10 11 ARE
R/AT NO. 1/509, NADIVES
ICHALAKARANJI-416 115
DIST KOLHAPUR MAHARASTRA STATE
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J. S. HALASHETTI, ADV.)
3
AND
1. STATE BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 016
R/BY STATE PBULIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SMT PARVEEN JAMADAR
W/O NAEEM SHAHABUDDIN SUTAR
AGE 30 YEARS, OCC SOFTWARE
ENGINEER, PREVIOUSLY
R/AT # 7 II CROSS
OPP FCI SHESHAPPA LAYOUT
VIJINAPUR BENGALURU-560 016
NOW R/AT KARAN BELLA VISTA
APARTMENT, B-WING FLAT NO.203
NEAR ANNA SAHEB NAGAR
VEGETABLE MARKET
PUNE-SOLAPUR ROAD
MAJARI-412 307
HAVELI TALUKA PUNE DISTRICT
MAHARASTRAS-STATE … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R1;
SRI. K. KRISHNASWAMY, ADV. FOR R2.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.203/2017 FILED
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AND
SECTION 506, 323 AND 498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS
CURRENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF X ADDL.C.M.M.,
MAYOHALL, BENGALURU MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Sri K. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel files vakalath
for respondent No.2 – wife.
2. Sri Naeem son of Shahabuddin Sutar, petitioner
No.1 herein and Smt. Parveen Jamadar, second
respondent herein are present before the court. Other
petitioners are the relatives of petitioner No.1.
3. The petitioners have sought for quashing of a
criminal case in FIR No.203/2017 of Ramamurthy Nagar
Police Station on the file of the respondent No.1 Police for
the offence punishable under sections 506, 498A, 323 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961, which is in-turn pending on the file
of the X Addl. CMM Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru City.
4. The first petitioner and the second respondent
have filed a joint memo stating that, the matter has been
amicably settled between themselves and they have
produced the Memorandum of Settlement recorded u/s.89
read with Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure
(Mediation) Rules, 2005, filed in C.Misc.No.139/2017
5
before the Court of the I MMTC, Bengaluru. As per
paragraph 6 7 of the Memorandum of Settlement, both
the parties have categorically accepted to help themselves
and to co-operate for quashing of the proceedings in
Crime No.203/2017 on the file of the Rakmamurthynagar
Police.
5. It is seen that perhaps after filing of a criminal
case, some time later they have realized their mistake and
they have decided to live together. Therefore, in order to
facilitate them to lead happy life, this criminal case should
not come in their way.
6. In this regard, it is worth to refer a decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab and Another reported in (2012) 10
SCC 303, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held thus:-
“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
6and 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.”
7. The factual matrix of this case also falls within the
categories as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court.
Therefore, there is no legal impediment to quash the
proceedings as prayed for. Hence, the Joint Memo and the
Memorandum of Settlement filed by the parties, entered
into between them, it is just and necessary to quash the
proceedings. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
The Petition is allowed. The Joint Memo and the
Memorandum of Settlement filed by the first petitioner and
7
second respondent is hereby accepted. Consequently, all
further proceedings in Crime No.203/2017 on the file of
the respondent No.1 Police, which is pending on the file of
the X ACMM, Mayo hall Bengaluru City, for the offence
punishable under sections 506, 498A, 323 read with
Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PL*
