Quashed

Shaik Ajmathulla v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2022CRL.P/2894/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of Criminal Petition No. 2894 of 2022 filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings involving offences under Sections 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The court terminated and quashed the proceedings due to a valid compromise and joint memo of settlement between the parties.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is disposed of and the proceedings in C.C.No.20369/2020 are quashed.

Shaik Ajmathulla Vs State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2894 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SHAIK AJMATHULLA S/O KADAR SAB AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2 ANJANA NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS MAHESHWARI NAGARA T. DASARAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶9

SHAIK RAMIZA S/O SHAIK KADAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.

¶10

SHAIK KADAR BASHA S/O LATE MOHIDIN SAB AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.

¶11

KADEER BASHA S/O UNKNOWN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶12

PETITIONER NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT RACHELARA VILLAGE GIDDALURU TALUK PRAKASHAM DISTRICT ANDRA PRADESH.

¶13

... PETITIONERS (BY SRI LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALGUNTE POLICE STATION REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 01.

¶17

SHASIYA BHANU W/O SHEK AJAMATHULLA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT TOWN POLICE STATION BACK SIDE SOPPINAHATTI, SHIRA TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 137.

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.YASHODHA K.P., HCGP FOR R1; SRI R.VINAYAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THEIR CRIME NO. 388/2019 IN C.C. NO.20369/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE 31^ST ADDL. CMM AT BANGALORE BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT WOMEN POLICE STATION BANGALORE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 506 r/w 34 OF IPC-1860 AND 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT 1961.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.20369/2020, pending on the file of the 31^st Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 of the IPC r/w. Section 34

¶24

¶25

of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

¶26

1961, arising out of Crime No.388/2019.

¶27

During the pendency of this petition, the parties to the

¶28

lis have entered into compromise and have filed joint memo of compromise. The relevant paragraphs of the joint memo read as follows:

¶29

“ 4. It is further submits that, in view of the settlement arrived between the parties, the respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the proceedings pending in Crime No.388/2019 and presently in C.C.No.20369/2020 of 1^st respondent police on the file of 31^st Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, against the petitioners. As such the respondent No.2 has no objection to allow the present petition and quash the proceedings in CC No.20369/2020 of 1^st respondent police on the file of 31^st Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶30

5. It is further submits that, similarly, both the parties have no future claims against each other.”

¶31

In the light of the compromise arrived at between the

¶32

parties and that the parties have decided to live together as stated in the joint memo, I deem it appropriate to terminate the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.20369/2020.

¶33

¶34

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

(i) The criminal petition is disposed.

¶37

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.20369/2020, pending on

¶38

the file of the 31^st Additional C.M.M., Bengaluru, stands quashed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

nvj CT:MJ

Shaik Ajmathulla v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Ajmathulla v. 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. Madhu Mohan Reddy Vs Sri. Sathish v Poojary

Mr Ram Mohan Vora Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Balachandar Krishnaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Syed Naifulla Hussaini Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Rajendra Alias Paul Vs State of Karnataka

The Secretary Vs Krishnappa H.B