SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Naeem vs State By Ramamurthy Nagar Police … on 2 July, 2018

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
6

and 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*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation