Allowed

Sayyad Haleem v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2022CRL.P/235/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings based on an FIR for dowry-related and harassment offences. The quashing was ordered because the Mediation Centre reported an amicable settlement among parties with the second respondent consenting to the quash.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in P.C.R. No.23/2018 (FIR No.131/2018) for offences under Section 498-A IPC, Sections 323, 504, 506(2) read with Section 149 IPC, and Sections 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act

Sayyad Haleem Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.235 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SAYYAD HALEEM

¶9

S/O SAYYAD ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT KEMMANNU POST HOODE, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 213.

¶10

HASEENA

¶11

W/O SAYYAD AKRAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NEAR PETROL BUNK,

¶12

JAIPUR, SRINGERI CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT - 577 123

¶13

ZAREENA

¶14

W/O MEHARBAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT KIGGA, SRINGERI CHIKMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 139.

¶15

SHABEENA

¶16

W/O MOHAMMED SHAREEF AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NEAR PETROL BUNK MALPE, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 108

¶17

¶18

NAGEENA W/O PARVEZ AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT: NEAR MASJID MALPE, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 108

¶19

IMRAN S/O SAYYAD ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT: ADI UDUPI UDUIP TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 103.

¶20

RAFEEQ W/O SAYYAD ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT: NEAR LIONS CLUB HALL BRAHMAGIRI, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 103.

¶21

MEHARABAN S/O ABDUL LATHIF AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT: KIGGA, SRINGERI CHIKMAGALURU - 577 139

¶22

...PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SMT. LETHIF B., ADV.)

¶24

AND:

¶25

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALPE POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT REP. BY THE S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶26

¶27

SMT. REHANA

¶28

W/O. SAYYAD HALEEM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT KEMMANNU POST HOODE, UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 577 108.

¶29

… RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP, FOR R1; SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, ADV. FOR R2)

¶31

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.R.NO.23/2018 (FIR NO.131/2018) OF MALPE POLICE STATION, UDUPI DISTRICT ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR 'FINAL HEARING' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The parties are present through video conference.

¶35

The second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶36

¶37

The Jurisdictional Magistrate referred the

¶38

matter to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Police registered the first information report against the petitioners for the offences aforesaid offences. Taking exception to the same, this petition has been filed.

¶39

The matter was referred to the Mediation Centre so as to explore the possibility of settlement between the parties.

¶40

The Mediation Centre has submitted a report stating that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, subject to certain terms and conditions and one of the conditions is that the second respondent has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶41

Though some of the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable and non-bailable, however, having regard to the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the second respondent having no objection for quashing the impugned FIR, so

¶42

¶43

as to secure the ends of justice, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings.

¶44

7. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶47

ii) The proceedings in P.C.R. No.23/2018 (FIR No.131/2018) of Malpe Police Station, Udupi District pending on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Udupi for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506(2) read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

JUDGE

¶50

Sayyad Haleem v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyad Haleem v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K B Eshwaraprasad Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Mangala Builders Private Ltd. Vs Mangalore City Corporation

Indiranagar Club Vs the Commissioner

Mr Chandrasekharan Nair P Vs the State by

Manjunath N K Vs Smt N M Nagarathnamma @ N M Nagamma

Mr M P Ahamed Vs the State by