Dismissed

Sri Shahul Rafeeq M E v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2022CRL.P/3348/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Karnataka accepted a settlement memo between the petitioner husband and the respondent wife regarding charges under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. Finding the conditions fulfilled, the court terminated the criminal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is disposed of. Proceedings in C.C. No. 55344/2018 for offences under Sections 498A, 323 R/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act stand quashed.

Sri Shahul Rafeeq M E Vs State of Karnataka — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3348 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI. SHAHUL RAFEEQ M.E, S/O M.S. IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶9

SRI. EBRAHIM M.SA, S/O. SAHIRI, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

¶10

SMT. FATHIMA, W/O. EBRAHIM M.S. AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

¶11

PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING BEHIND GANESH FLOOR MILL, GANAPATHI STREET, MADIKERI- 571 201, KODAGU DISTRICT.

¶12

MR. MOHAMMED ALI S/O. LATE M.K. ABBAS, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT UPSTAIRS OF HERO SHOW ROOM, HILL ROAD MADIKERI 571201.

¶13

... PETITIONERS

¶14

[BY SRI. ABDUL SALAM N.K, ADVOCATE]

¶15

¶16

AND

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K.R. PURAM POLICE STATION K.R.PURAM SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY, REP.BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶18

2, SMT. AYESHA BANU KHATEEB @ KHATIB D/O. SRI. A.M. KHATEEB AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT No.1965-37/38, VINAYAKA EXTENSION, 3^RD CROSS, VIDAYANAGAR, DAVANGERE 577 005.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

[BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.MOHAMMED ASHRAF , ADV., FOR R2]

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.129/2015 ON THE FILE OF K.R. PURAM POLICE STATION, K.R. PURAM SUB-DIVISION AND THE CHARGESHEET FILED IN CC No.55344/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED X ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT MAYO HALL, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A), 323 R/W 34 IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC No.55344/2018 registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 R/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act.

¶26

The parties were before the Civil Court in OS No.1/2021, wherein the petitioners have settled the dispute amongst themselves and have drawn-up such terms of Settlement. The said Settlement reads as follows:

¶27

"COMPROMISE MEMO U/SEC-89 OF CPC, R/W RULE-24 & 25 OF THE KARNATAKA MEDIATION RULES, 2005 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANT

¶28

That the plaintiff i.e. Smt. Ayesh Khatib and the defendant have compromised the above matter on the following terms:

¶29

The plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of the defendant and their marriage was performed on 26.09.2011 as per the customs prevailing in Muslim community at Hotel Pooja

¶30

¶31

International, P.B. Road, Davangere. Out of the said wedlock, no issues are born.

¶32

The plaintiff has lodged a case before the K.R.Puram Police Station, Benglauru in Cr.No-153/2018/C.C-55344/2018 for the offences punishable U/Sec-498A, 506, R/w-34 of IPC and Sec-3 and 4 of the Prevention of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the defendant and others. Now, the plaintiff and defendant have compromised this case before elders for Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs Rupees only) as permanent alimony to plaintiff. Now, in view of the settlement arrive between the plaintiff and defendant, she has agreed to withdraw the C.C-55344/2018 which is pending before the Learned X -Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru by receiving a part amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide DD No789206, dated 06/01/2022, account payee D.D, Kotak Bank, Mercara in favour of plaintiff.

¶33

That the petitioner has agreed to withdraw the Crl.Mis.No-201/2019, 311/2020, 243/2021 DV Act recovery cases on the final orders passed in Crl.Mis No-13/2017 before the JMFC-III, Davangere. The petitioner also agreed to withdraw the recovery maintenance case before the Hon'ble Family Court, Davangere u/sec-125(3) of Cr.P.C. in Crl.Mis.No-89/2020 & Crl.Mis.No-244/2021 on the final orders passed in Crl.Mis.No-354/2019 on the file of Hon'ble Family Court, Davangere.

¶34

The defendant has agreed to withdraw the Suit of restitution filed by him before Learned P.C.J. & JMFC, Madikeri in OS108/2017. The defendant has also agreed to withdraw the said restitution of conjugal rights case. The defendant also agreed to withdraw the

¶35

¶36

Crl.Appeal No-51/2021 on the file of Hon'ble ADJ-II, Davangere.

¶37

It is further agreed between both the parties that, the defendant has to pay Rs.4,00,000/- [Four Lakhs Rupees] to plaintiff towards permanent alimony before the Hon'ble Family Court, Davangere vide 1]. DD.No.789208 for Rs.50,000/-, 2]. DD No.789209 for Rs.1,00,000/-, 3] DD No.78905 for Rs.50,000/-, 4]. DD No-789207 for Rs.2,00,000/- dated 06/01/2022 account payee Kotak Mahindra Bank, Mercara respectively in favour of plaintiff. There are no any articles or things or ornaments remained between the parties to exchange. As per the mediation report, the defendant has also agreed to give consent for divorce to plaintiff. And the plaintiff has also agreed for the same.

¶38

That the plaintiff has agreed that she will not claim any share in the property of the defendant properties or maintenance or alimony in future against the defendant. There is no force or fraud or coercion or undue influence in entering this compromise memo by the respective parties."

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would submit that all the conditions stipulated in the Settlement have been fulfilled.

¶40

Therefore, in the light of the Settlement arrived at between the parties and the offence being under

¶41

¶42

Section 498A IPC and not being against the State, I deem it appropriate to accept the Settlement and to terminate the proceedings against the petitioners.

¶43

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The criminal petition is disposed of.

¶46

(ii) The proceedings against petitioners in C.C.NO. 55344/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,R/w 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act, pending on the file of X ACMM., at Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City stand quashed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

tsn*

Sri Shahul Rafeeq M E v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Shahul Rafeeq M E 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kshitiz Gurung Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Jatin Sethi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sandeep Balachandran Vs State by Talaghattapura Ps

Sri Rithesh Pais Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sathish Vs State of Karnataka

J M Richard @ Joy Macdonald Richard Vs State of Karnataka