SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sayyed Arifulla vs State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2014

Karnataka High Court Sayyed Arifulla vs State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2014Author: K.N.Phaneendra

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014

BEFORE

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11444/2013

BETWEEN:

1. Sayyed Arifulla

S/o Mehaboobpasha Kadri Peerzade, Age: 35 years,

R/o Mugad Village,

Taluk and District: Dharwad.

2. Mehaboob Pasha Kadri

@ Peerzade S/o Yusufasha Peerzade, Age: 68 years,

R/o Mugad Village,

Taluk and District : Dharwad.

3. Meharunnisa @ Hayatabi

W/o Mehaboob Pasha Kadri Peerazade, Age: 62 years,

R/o Mugad Village,

Taluk and District: Dharwad.

4. Sayyad Yusuf

S/o Mehaboob Pasha Kadri

@ Peerazade, Age: 33 years,

R/o Mugad Village,

Taluk and District: Dharwad. … PETITIONERS

(BY SRI J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

2

AND:

1. State of Karnataka

by its Police Inspector,

Mahila Police Station,

Kadebazar, Belgaum,

Represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka,

Dharwad Bench.

2. Smt. Hassenbanu

D/o N.A. Peerzade,

Age: 28 years,

R/o Sector No.45/B, Plot No.3/B,

5th Cross, Azam Nagar,

Boxite Road, Belgaum. …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1, SRI. M.H. PATIL FOR

SRI. A.G. MULAWADMATH, ADVS. FOR R-2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C. II COURT, BELGAUM IN C.C. NO.587/2011 BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.09.2013 AND BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT.

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

3

ORDER

The petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 are present and the

respondent No.2 is present before the Court.

2. Earlier, this matter was referred to Mediation Centre.

The matter came back to this Court with a report of the

Mediator stating that the parties have amicably settled the

matter between themselves.

3. I have carefully perused the compromise petition

between the parties. They have settled their dispute

between themselves amicably. By virtue of the same, the

respondent No.2 agreed for compromise by receiving

Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs only) towards her

maintenance and Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only)

towards golden ornaments weighing two (2) tolas and in total

receiving a sum of Rs.15,60,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs

sixty thousand only) before the Court today. It is also stated

in the compromise petition that the 2nd respondent has

agreed that her marriage with the 1st respondent has been 4

dissolved as per triple talaq pronounced by the 1st petitioner

on 07.06.2010, 07.07.2010 and 07.08.2010 and she

accepted the said talaq as valid and in accordance with law.

By virtue of the same she has absolutely no objection to

quash the proceedings in C.C. No.587/2011 pending on the

file of J.M.F.C. II Court, Belgaum.

4. It is worth to note here a decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 between

Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held :

“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 Sec. 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 Sec. 482, High Court must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and its societal impact. 5

Thus, it is also held that 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 predominatingly 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 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 6

whether to secure ends of justice, it is appropriate the criminal case is put to an end – If such questions are answered in the affirmative, High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding”.

5. It is also held that the power of High Court under

Section 482 :

“Quashing of criminal offences and power of compounding of offences under Section 320. In compounding of offences, power of a criminal court is circumscribed by provisions contained in Section 320, being guided solely and squarely thereby – On the other hand, formation of opinion by High Court for quashing a criminal offence or criminal proceeding or criminal complaint under Section 482 is guided by the material on record as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power although ultimate consequence may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. Hence, quashing of offence or criminal proceedings on the ground of settlement between an offender and victim is not the same thing as compounding of offences before the Trial Court”. 7

6. In fact, this Court also had an occasion to deal with

such matters in 2012 (3) KCCR 2338 between Prashant

Vs. State of Karnataka and another this Court held that :

“To quash the proceeding registered on the basis of FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 307 of IPC – Petitioner is the husband of the second respondent. Petitioner alleged to be flirting with other women and started ill-treating the second respondent. Petitioner was arrested on this background, as on date, petitioner and second respondent have reconciled and are living peacefully without any problems between them. Maintainability of petition, non-compoundable offences, whether can be compounded. Question of quashing the proceedings and seeking to initiate and withdraw proceeding at their, whim and fancy would make a mockery of justice system.

But, ultimately this Court has held that if it is a matrimonial

dispute that can be set at rest by means of quashing the

proceedings. Applying the above said principles to this case,

it is seen from the records that the wife has filed a complaint 8

for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 307,

506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 and 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act. The Police have filed charge sheet

and the matter is pending before the Trial Court for trial. In

fact, the charges have also been framed against the accused

Nos.1 to 4 who are the petitioners herein. As this particular

offence does not come under the category as described by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated above in order to refuse

compounding. Hence, this Court can record compromise

and pass appropriate order.

7. In view of the matter being referred to Mediation

Centre and during the course of mediation, the parties sat

together and explored the settlement and in view of the

settlement they have amicably parted with each other, it

appears the wife is also fully satisfied with the financial aid

given by the husband by way of providing life time

maintenance of Rs.15,00,000/- and also towards golden

ornaments amounting to a sum of Rs.60,000/-. 9

8. In view of the above said circumstances, I also feel that

the settlement is reasonable and it does not affect any

interest of the society, it is purely private in nature.

Therefore, there is no legal impediments in view of the above

said rulings to quash the proceedings.

The compromise entered into between the parties is

recorded and the said compromise application filed by the

parties shall be part and parcel of this order. In view of the

same, all proceedings pending before the J.M.F.C. II Court,

Belgaum in C.C. No. 587/2011 is hereby quashed.

SD/-

JUDGE

Rbv/

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 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