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
5of 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*