Allowed

Mrs M Abisa Khader v. State of Karnataka by S.H.O.

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2022CRL.P/406/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition prayed for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. The Hon'ble Court noted a Family Court compromise decree dissolving the marriage and settling the dispute, including withdrawal of cases, and therefore quashed the impugned proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3026/2019 pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru were quashed.

Mrs M Abisa Khader Vs State of Karnataka by S.H.O. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 406 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 406 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. M. ABISA KHADER AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, W/O MR.S.ABDUL HAMEED D/O MR.M.ABDUL KHADER, R/AT NEAR HUDA PARK BDCC COLONY, BESIDE HARSHA AGENCY HOSPAPETE, BALLARI – 583 201.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.IRSHAD AHMED K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.H.O. SUDDAGUNTEPALYA POLICE STATION 4^TH MAIN ROAD, K.M.LAYOUT, BALAJI NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 029.

¶14

MR.ABDUL HAMEED AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O MR.SYED NOOR MOHAMMED.

¶15

¶16

CRL.P No. 406 of 2022

¶17

MR.SYED NOOR MOHAMMED @ S. NOOR BASHA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O S.A.SATTAR.

¶18

MRS.FATHIMA BIBI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O MR.SYED NOOR MOHAMMED.

¶19

MR.SYED GULAMMOHAMMED HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, S/O MR.SYED NOOR MOHAMMED,

¶20

RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.LIG 2/12, KHB COLONY, TILAK NAAR, CONTONMENT BALLARI, BALLARI CONTONMENT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, BALLARI – 583 104.

¶21

MRS.SAKEENA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, W/O MR.N.SYED TAJUDDIN.

¶22

MR.N.SYED TAJUDDIN AGED 39 YEARS, S/O MR.N.SYED JAFFAR,

¶23

PETITIONERS NO.6 AND 7 ARE R/AT PLOT NO.5, 5^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, WARD NO.28, EK MINAR HOSPITAL GOLDSMITH COLONY, BALLARI-583 102.

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 406 of 2022

¶26

MR.HONNUR VALI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE KHASIM SAB RESIDENT OF WARD NO.32, GOURAMMA COMPOUND, BEHIND TELUGU CHURCH FORT, BALLARI HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI BALLARI – 583 101.

¶27

MR.SYED JILAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O MR.SYED MADAR SAB RESIDENT AT 11^TH WARD, REDDY STREET, OPP. MADEENA MASJID BALLARI – 583 101.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;

¶30

SRI MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R9)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 9 U/S 498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT IN C.C.NO.3026/2019 (CR.NO.207/2018) ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU BETWEEN SUDDAGUNTEPALYA POLICE STATION Vs ABDUL HAMEED AND OTHERS.

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.3026/2019 (arising out of Crime

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 406 of 2022

¶37

No.207/2018), registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶38

The parties to the lis were also before the Family Court in O.S.No.17/2018 wherein both the parties have settled the dispute amongst themselves and filed a compromise petition under Order 23 Rule 3 r/w Section 151 of the CPC, which also recognises closure of the present proceedings. The Compromise Decree reads as follows:

¶39

“This petition coming on this day for final disposal before me in the presence of Sri N.Khalid, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri Abdul Majeed, Advocate for the defendant and both plaintiff and defendant filed Compromise Petition U/O 23 Rule 3 R/W Section 151 of the C.P.C. after the contents having been admitted to be true and correct, this court doth ordered as under

¶40

It is ordered and decreed that, the compromise petition is filed to both parties is here by allowed.

¶41

It further ordered and decreed that, the plant filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed in terms of compromise petition as under

¶42

1.The defendant has agreed to withdraw her case filed against the plaintiff and his family members by attending before the concerned court at Bangaluru in accordance with law in Crime No 3026/2018 wherein after filing charge sheet in CC No.0207/2018 which is pending on the file of the 6^th Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 406 of 2022

¶45

2.After passing the decree of Divorce, the plaintiff and defendant have agreed to abide by the decree passed in the above suit for dissolution of marriage. The plaintiff and defendant undertake not to interfere with the affairs of each other in any manner whatsoever. Further, the parties undertake not to lodge any complaint/sue in the court of law for defamation, etc, against each other, their family members in any manner whatsoever. Both the parties shall be at liberty to lead their independent lives without interference as per their will and wishes.

¶46

3. The marriage dt.16.07.2017 between the plaintiff and defendant is hereby dissolved.

¶47

It is further ordered and decreed that the compromise petition shall be the part of decree.”

¶48

In the light of the compromise arrived at between the

¶49

parties as afore-extracted, I deem it appropriate to terminate

¶50

the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences, as the allegations are not against the State.

¶51

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The Criminal Petition is disposed.

¶54

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3026/2019 pending before the VI

¶55

¶56

CRL.P No. 406 of 2022

¶57

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

¶58

Bengaluru stand quashed.

¶59

Sd/JUDGE

¶60

BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 324

Mrs M Abisa Khader v. State of Karnataka by S.H.O.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs M Abisa Khader v. State of Karnataka by S.H.O.

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

C Puttarudraiah Vs S Vanitha

Ranjith Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri B R Shiva Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Nataraj K Vs the State of Karnataka

Jayaram Vs State of Karnataka

Mr S Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka