Allowed

Mohammad Shaanib Imathali v. State of Karnataka by Mangaluru Women Police

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2023CRL.P/1026/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323, and 363 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court allowed the compromise filed by the parties, noting the dispute originated from a matrimonial settlement and the offences were not heinous.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Crime No.3/2019 registered for offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323, 363 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed.

Mohammad Shaanib Imathali Vs State of Karnataka by… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:23145 CRL.P No. 1026 of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1026 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMAD SHAANIB IMATHALI

¶9

S/O LATE ABDULLA KHUNI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O SUPER STONE, CHOORITHADKA, BAMBRANA, KASARGOD TALUK, KERALA STATE-671 321.

¶10

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SHARBAH STREET, 43, ABU DHABI, UAE.

¶11

SMT. JOHARA W/O. ABDULLA KHUNI, Digitally AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, signed by ALBHAGYA OCC: HOUSEWIFE, Location: R/O. SUPER STONE, CHOORITHADKA, HIGH COURT OF BAMBRANA, KASARGOD TALUK, KARNATAKA KERALA STATE-671 321.

¶12

PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: SHARBAH STREET, 43, ABU DHABI, UAE.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. DINESHKUMAR K RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:23145 CRL.P No. 1026 of 2019

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALURU WOMEN POLICE STATION, MANGALORE (REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001)

¶18

SMT. RISHANA NILOFAR W/O. U. N. SEEDIYABBA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. SUPER VILLA, PERMANNURU, KALLAPU, TOKKOTTU, MANGALORE, MANGALORE-560 0656.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.VINAYAKA.V.S, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.UMESH.P.B, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR/COMPLAINT REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.3/2019 OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, MANGALORE (REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 498A,504,506,323,363 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3,4 OF D.P ACT) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III-JMFC COURT, MANGALORE.

¶22

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

¶23

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23145 CRL.P No. 1026 of 2019

¶24

ORDER

¶25

An application under Section 482 read with Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. accompanied by a joint affidavit of petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2-complainant is filed seeking permission of this Court to compound the offences and to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioners in Crime No.03/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323, 363 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, pending on the file of JMFC III Court, Mangalore.

¶26

In the application, petitioner No.1-accused No.1 and respondent No.2-Complainant have stated that they have amicably settled the differences and are residing together. In the light of the settlement, respondent No.2complainant has consented for quashing of the proceedings for the aforesaid offences.

¶27

Sri.Shadath Anwar, learned counsel who is

¶28

present virtually along with petitioners-accused and

¶29

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23145 CRL.P No. 1026 of 2019

¶30

respondent No.2-complainant has also made a statement that the parties have voluntarily agreed to put an end to the litigations including the proceedings pending in Crime No.3/2019.

¶31

The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has laid down certain guidelines in regard to the power of High Court to quash the proceedings. The Apex Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir & Others vs. State of Gujarat & Another¹ has held that power to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR may be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute having regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. It is only in heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, offences under the Prevention of

¶32

1 (2017) 9 SCC 641

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23145 CRL.P No. 1026 of 2019

¶34

Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. If criminal cases are registered which are offshoot of matrimonial disputes between husband and wife and if amicable settlement is arrived at and wife concedes for quashing of the proceedings, it is well within the power of High Court to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶35

If by way of compromise, the matrimonial

¶36

disputes are given a quietus, then Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court and High Court in a given set of facts and circumstances of the case to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, may quash the proceedings. The above said principles are squarely applicable to the present case on hand.

¶37

The joint application is taken on record. As the

¶38

offences alleged are not grave and heinous and having regard to fact that the crime registered is an off shoot of

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:23145 CRL.P No. 1026 of 2019

¶41

matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife, I am

¶42

of the view that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings

¶43

pending in Crime No.3/2019.

¶44

For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶47

(ii) The proceedings pending in Crime No.3/2019 of Women Police Station, Mangalore, registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323, 363 read with Section 34

¶48

of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of JMFC III

¶49

Court, Mangalore are hereby quashed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

ALB

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Mohammad Shaanib Imathali v. State of Karnataka by Mangaluru Women Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Shaanib Imathali v. State of Karnataka by Mangaluru Women Police

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 Sachidananda Murthy Vs The Assistant Commissioner

Ideal Education Society Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

B Ranganatha Vs State of Karnataka

P Thimmegowda Vs Deputy Commissioner

Mrs.Shanthi S Vs Sir M.Visvesvaraya Co. Operative Bank

Ms Varsha v Gouda Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences