Allowed

H.S. Rahamathulla Khan S/O H.S. Ahamad Khan v. the State by

Karnataka HC26 Sept 2022WP/103468/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings initiated against six petitioners in a matrimonial dispute involving dowry allegations. The court exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to accept the compromise and dismiss the case as the offences were deemed individual in nature.

What did the court decide?

The entire criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No.36/2018 against petitioners/accused no.1 to 6 are hereby quashed.

H.S. Rahamathulla Khan S/O H.S. Ahamad Khan Vs the State… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 103468 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 103468 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H.S. RAHAMATHULLA KHAN

¶9

S/O H.S. AHAMAD KHAN AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.7, WARD NO.30, NOOR MANZIL, JAYANAGAR 2ND CROSS, CANTONMENT, BALLARI.

¶10

H.S.NOORJAHAN KHANAM W/O H.S. AHAMAD KHAN, AGE: 68 YEARS, R/O: PLOT NO.7, WARD NO.30, NOOR MANZIL, JAYANAGAR 2^ND CROSS, CANTONMENT, BALLARI.

¶11

3 ASIYA FAROOQ W/O UMMAR FAROOK AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: NEAR KENCHAPPA HIGH SCHOOL, 28TH WARD, ASHRAYA NAGAR, COWL BAZAR, BALLARI.

¶12

S.AYESHA W/O SYED SHAFIULLA AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: PLOT NO.7,

¶13

¶14

WP No. 103468 of 2018

¶15

WRD NO.30, NOOR MANZIL, JAYANAGAR 2^ND CROSS, CANTONMENT, BALLARI.

¶16

H.S.NAZIA KHANAM W/O MOHAMMED NASEER SHAIK AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: NO.29/25, DEVI NAGAR, 1^ST CROSS, OPP. GOA MEDICALS, BALLARI.

¶17

6 UMMAR FAROOQ S/O ABDUL LNABI SAB AGE: 47 YEARS, R/O: WARD NO.25, JAYANAGAR 2^ND CROSS, CANTONMENT, BALLARI.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. L S SULLAD, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WOMEN POLICE ST ATION, BALLARI.

¶22

T. MAIMUNNISA BEGUM @ H.S. JUVERIYA AHAMADI KHANAM D/O. JAHANGEERSAB, R/O. ROSHAN ZAMEER MANZIL EX-SERVICEMAN COLONY, I FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, COWL, BALLARI.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GIRISH YADAWAD, ADV., FOR R2)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION

¶26

¶27

WP No. 103468 of 2018

¶28

482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN F.I.R.NO.36/2018 DATED:04.03.2018 AND QUASH THE FIR NO.36/2018 FILED AT COWL BAZAR POLICE STATION, BALLARI U/S.498A, 504, 323, 307, 34 (DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961( U/S.3, 4) AS PER ANNEXURE-"D".

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners, who are arraigned as accused No.1 to 6 have filed this petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings in Crime No.36/2018 of Ballari Women P.S. for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 504, 323, 307 read with section 34 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act contending that the marriage of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 10.05.2015 and after about two months, they went to Saudi-Arabia as petitioner No.1 was working there. However, they came back to India as the aged parents of petitioner No.1 were living alone. Since respondent No.2 was not interested in staying with her parents-in-law she started pestering petitioner

¶31

¶32

WP No. 103468 of 2018

¶33

No.1 to set up separate residence which was not agreeable to him. This led to difference of opinion between them. Ultimately, when respondent No.2 went to her parental home for delivery she did not return. However she has chosen to file a false complaint implicating the petitioners and hence, the petition.

¶34

Respondent No.1 has appeared through HCGP.

¶35

Respondent No.2 has appeared through

¶36

counsel.

¶37

A joint memo is filed by the counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2 stating that the dispute is settled between the parties in Crl.Misc.85/2022 on 30.06.2022 and prays to quash the criminal proceedings by allowing the writ petition.

¶38

Along with the memo, they have produced the certified copies of order sheet in Crl.Misc.85/2022, proposed conditions for compromise from the respondent No.2, memo for deposit of account payee bankers cheque

¶39

¶40

WP No. 103468 of 2018

¶41

in favour of petitioners therein and memo for production of documents on behalf of respondent therein.

¶42

Perusal of the documents placed on record makes it evident that petitioner No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.2/2018 for declaration that respondent No.2 is no more the wife of petitioner No.1 as he has divorced her through Talak. The parties have entered into compromise whereby petitioner No.1 herein has paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony. Respondent No.2 has agreed to withdraw the complaint. Since the some of the offences alleged are non-compoundable, they are seeking quashing of the same.

¶43

At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of in the case of Narindra Singh V/s. State of Punjab¹ ( Narindra Singh’s case ) wherein at paragraph 31, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate

¶44

1 2014 AIR SCW 2065

¶45

¶46

WP No. 103468 of 2018

¶47

treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.

¶48

In Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another² , ( Gian Singh’s Case ) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of the power of trial Court in excising the discretion under Section 320 of Cr.P.C and that of the High court excising inherited powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. In Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and another³ , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., even though the offence alleged is non-compoundable, if parties have amicably settled their disputes and victim has no objection. However, this would depend on the facts of each case. Offences which involve

¶49

2 (2012) 10 SCC 303

¶50

3 (2014) 9 SCC 653

¶51

¶52

WP No. 103468 of 2018

¶53

moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder cannot be effaced by quashing proceedings because they have harmful effect on Society and are not restricted to individuals or groups. Quashing of such offence may send a wrong signal to the Society. However, if the High Court is convinced that the offences are individual or personal in nature and not affecting the public peace or tranquility and quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would secure ends of justice, it may quash the same. In such case, the prosecution becomes lame and pursuing such lame prosecution may become waste of time and energy and also unsettled compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.

¶54

In the light of the above decisions, it would be

¶55

necessary to examine whether this is a fit case to accept the compromise between the parties. From perusal of material placed on record, it is evident that essentially it is

¶56

a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and in order to settle score with

¶57

¶58

WP No. 103468 of 2018

¶59

petitioner No.1, the remaining petitioners are roped in. Already divorce is effected between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. They have also settled the dispute regarding permanent alimony. Having regard to the facts, essentially it is a dispute inter se between the parties not affecting the society. Since the offences are individual and personal in nature and it is not invading the public peace or tranquility the quashing of proceedings on account of compromise is going to secure the ends of justice. Continuation of dispute between the parties even after they have compromised would become lame and pursuing such a lame prosecution may become waste of time and energy and also unsettle the compromise and obstruct the restoration of peace. Having regard to these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court. In order to do real, complete and substantial justice between the parties, it would be appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings by exercising the powers under

¶60

¶61

WP No. 103468 of 2018

¶62

section 482 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶63

ORDER

¶64

The petition is allowed in terms of the compromise petition.

¶65

Permission is granted to the parties to compound and in the result, the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No.36/2018 registered by Ballari Women P.S. for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 504, 323, 307 read with section 34 of IPC and section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, as against petitioners/accused no.1 to 6 is hereby quashed.

¶66

In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

YAN

H.S. Rahamathulla Khan S/O H.S. Ahamad Khan v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.S. Rahamathulla Khan S/O H.S. Ahamad Khan v. the State by

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

Jadar Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Jadar Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghavendra Alias Raghu Alias Oc Raghu S/O. Ramachandrappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kartik Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kartik Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Xxxxxxxx Vs Xxxxxxxxx