SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Salma Parveen vs State By D.J.Halli Police Station on 28 June, 2018

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA

CRL.P. NO.8711/2017

BETWEEN

1. SALMA PARVEEN
REP. BY HER SPA HOLDER MOTHER
SMT. REEHANA PARVEEN

2. REEHANA PARVEEN

3. MOHAMMED MUNEER

ALL ARE R/AT NO.600
1ST STAGE, RAJEEV NAGAR
MYSURU. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. HARISHA D. N., ADV.)

AND

1. STATE BY D.J.HALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU

2. MUSTAQ NAIK
AGE ABOUT 50 YEARS

3. MAHMOODA BEGAM
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

4. SABBIR @ SHAHID
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

5. REEHANA @ ROSAN ARA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
2

6. KHIZAR
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

ALL ARE R/AT NO.1073
S.H.LAYOUT
KAVLBYRASANDRA
R.T.NAGAR POST
BANGALURU … RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. ANANDA KUMARA Y. D., ADV FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.54599/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH ACMM
COURT, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION
ACT.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Smt. Reehana Parveen, Special Power of Attorney

holder of Smt. Salma Parveen, Petitioner No.1 herein and

Sri Mustaz Naik, second respondent herein are present

before the court. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are no other than

the mother, brother, sisters of respondent No.2.

Respondent No.2 submits that the entire proceedings may

be quashed as against respondent Nos.2 to 6.

2. Heard. Perused the records.

3

3. It appears, there is no dispute that respondent

No.2-Mustaq Naik, is the husband of Petitioner No.1-Salma

Parveen, and their marriage has taken place on

13.12.2001. Thereafter, they lived together as husband

and wife for some time. Subsequently, differences arose

in the family, which led to the first petitioner filing a

complaint before Police in Crime No.208/2002 of Frazer

Town Police Station. Later, charge sheet being filed and a

case has been registered in CC No.54599/2015, which is

now pending on the file of the X ACMM, Mayohall Court,

Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under section 498A

of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

4. The parties, who are present before the court

submits that by means of filing a Joint Memo stating that

they have compounded the offences and they seek

permission for compromising the matter as the matter has

been settled between the parties, at the instance of the

elders of both the families. In view of the matrimonial

disputes being settled and the subject matter of this case

is essentially arising out of domestic relationship, in my

opinion, there is no legal impediment to quash the
4

proceedings as prayed by the petitioners. Even if the

proceedings are allowed to be continued, it becomes

infructuous in view of the hostility shown by the petitioners

herein.

5. In this regard, it is worth to refer a decision in

the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and

Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the 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
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
5

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.”

6. The factual matrix of this case also falls within the

categories as per the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Therefore, I am of the opinion that in order to facilitate the

parties to have their future life happy, it is just and

necessary to quash the proceedings. Hence, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The Petition is allowed. The Joint Memo filed by
the petitioner and respondent No.2 is hereby accepted.
Consequently, all further proceedings in CC
No.54599/2015 for the offence punishable under section
498A of IPC and Sections 3 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
pending on the file of the X ACMM, Bengaluru, are hereby
quashed so far as respondents 2 to 6 are concerned.

Sd/-

JUDGE
PL*

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

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