Karnataka High Court Zubair Anwar vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 2010Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy

IN)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAVING TO QUASH THE PROCEDENGS IN C.C. NO.lS88S/2004 AND EIR IN CR.NO.l9/2004 PENDING BEFORE THE VI AC?’/iF’=’–‘,_ BANGALORE AND INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ACCEI?_T’;. THE ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION COMPOUND THE OFEENCES. I’ THIS CRL.P IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS I COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Petitioners and their Counsel _are4′;.1resent. _3?e.tAitiO’ne’rE”‘ No.2 has filed an affidavit.

2. Learned High Coufirt .seaveri:ii1e.nt i=>ie’ad*er is directed to take notice on behalf’ofI’VSta’te_,_:”i=i.§.VI§3’tibmits that suitabie order may be’pas’jsed.1__

3. The affidafiiit.’OfI;3etiti’OnIer– reads as under: “I, about 40

years, R/at” ‘No.G3t.’V”A.kalet£__Aggartments, Miilers Road, E3ens:)_niiTvoi}’vn,””Ba-nfiaiore — 560 049, do hereby ‘so|emIriiy”af’fi”rm”and state as foiiows: ‘ fstate that I am the petitioner AI’!iO.’2′ iii th:e_abov,e’ case and am weil conversant witilthe involved herein.

B __ _ 2. I A1′ I state that the petitioner No.1 and “xi hat/”e fiied the above petition for the reiief’s mentioned therein and the averments in the petition may kindly be treated as part and parcel of this affidavit for the sake of brevity and in order to avoid repetition of facts.

3. I state that I was married to the_1._5t’V_”_”*~..V petitioner on 07/06/2002 in aCco:’dah’c’etwgith, Islamic rites and customs at Banga’iiore’§_’i’*?rori’i this marriage, we have a .dai._ighte”r-,_l4ianiyia”” Zubair, born on 01/03/2003.

4. I state that _15’5_V_ peti.ti’cn’eAr”‘and I were incompatible. Howyeyer,

stay together .-itiiii and

thereafter since

December lodged a

police ciolmiplacidity_foriithejijoffehceisiitinder section 498A OJF”‘IF:’¢’ ‘i9,/jwliféiec»tiaoh_:i’3__’ 3. 4 of oowry Prohibitiotiflict agiainistit»hVe”_.»spetitioher No.1 and his faini|_y members before the Ulsoorgate Worncefh iééolicviey Statio’h”,”‘Bangalore. The FIR was 3.7._r’egi’stere.d”iri’«Ctime No.19/2004 and the same h’as””–.__« ‘~:;”‘p”ending adjudication in C.C.i~i.O.1§38S§~/2004 before the Hoh’ble VI 333″‘-.«.4_’*ACMM, ‘Bangalore. It is submitted that charge ‘..fshAeet«–.ywas fiieci only against the 15’ petitioner éj__ai;-.d”‘ptoceedings were dropped against all the other family members.

2/,

5. I state that the 15* petitioner vide a Talaqnama dated 25/05/2004 pronounced Triple Talaq and accordingly my marriage with the 15′ petitioner, stood dissolved as perf Islamic rites.

6. I state that I filed a petiltiorigaglainfst petitioner No.1 before thevEamiiy~_’VCourt’/’A’ Bangalore in G&WC 48/2004″”for’ appofintiliigv’ myself as guardian and :”for per’m’ain.:ent”””Custody” of minor daughter Han’i’;a-.Z–:4_!3f’iélii«’. petitioner filed G&wcf;No;.e:$/zooe’5!:g~rer ai3D0inting him;se’l’fg;~ga:’S guardian for.h.afnding over the custod’gy,oif’ Zubair.

I also fi|_e__d._a’ behaif of

myself and ctiiid ‘«tff3’Fi_iya Zubair Seeking for course of the

proceedings’—._VMAin 48/2004, G&WC _ No.65/020004 and No.246/2004, all three cases haife been referred to mediation and in °r___o’urs’ee.o’f._;niedoi_a’t.ion; an amicable settlement ca’i:<ie”~ito befarriived between petitioners. One I . of the te-rrn’s”and conditions of the Agreement Vu/as gsectisnri 89 was as follows: petitioners have agreed to approach I -4′,/th’e Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka for I’ Vquashing the proceedings in

ef