Quashed

Jahangeer Ulla Khan v. State by Kadugondana Halli Ps

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2023CRL.P/1703/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the criminal prosecution against three petitioners for offences under Section 498A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, after they paid a settlement amount and the complainant agreed to divorce and forgive the accused, pending full compliance of the settlement terms.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned prosecution of petitioners in C.C. No.59018/2018 for offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, subject to compliance of t

Jahangeer Ulla Khan Vs State by Kadugondana Halli Ps — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:46970 CRL.P No. 1703 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1703 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

JAHANGEER ULLA KHAN S/O LATE HASAN KHAN AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT GODAN STREET HOLALURU, HOLALUR, SHIMOGA-577216.

¶8

NAGINA TAJ W/O JAHANGEER ULLA KHAN,

¶9

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT GODAN STREET, HOLALURU, HOLALUR, SHIMOGA-577216.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

RAHATHUNNISA W/O NAYAZ AHMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT 7^TH CROSS, TIPPU NAGAR LEFT SIDE, SHIMOGA-577201

¶12

(BY SRI. T. RAJARAM, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE BY

¶16

KADUGONDANA HALLI P.S. REPRESENTED BY

¶17

STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶18

FATHIMA W/O NYAMATHULLA KHAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT 680/2, 5^TH CROSS,

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:46970 CRL.P No. 1703 of 2020

¶20

SHIVANANDA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560075

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶23

SRI. MIRZA FAIZAN ASSAD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.59108/2018 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners have challenged the prosecution

¶28

launched against them in C.C. No.59108/2018 by the respondent No.1 pending trial before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru City (henceforth referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act, 1961’).

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:46970 CRL.P No. 1703 of 2020

¶30

A charge sheet was filed by the respondent No.1 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 1961.

¶31

When the petition was listed for admission on 13.12.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were desirous of settling the dispute with respondent No.2 and offered to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards the full and final settlement of maintenance clams of not only the respondent No.2 but also her child. He submitted that against receipt of Rs.20,00,000/-, the respondent No.2 shall agree to dissolve the marriage with accused No.1 through the due process of law.

¶32

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 were present in person and they accepted the offer and agreed to forget and forgive the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners against the respondent No.2 on payment of a sum of

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:46970 CRL.P No. 1703 of 2020

¶34

Rs.20,00,000/-. Respondent No.2 submitted that she would agree for dissolution of her marriage with accused No.1. In continuation of the above, the petitioners have handed over two demand drafts for Rs.5,00,000/- each favouring the daughter of the respondent No.2 towards part payment of the aforesaid amount and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the remaining Rs.10,00,000/- shall be paid to the respondent No.2 on the date of the dissolution of the marriage. It is made clear that the dissolution of the marriage and the payment of the remaining sum of Rs.10,00,000/- shall be by or before March 2024.

¶35

Subject to the compliance of the above, the impugned prosecution of the petitioners / accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C. No.59018/2018 pending trial before the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is quashed.

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:46970 CRL.P No. 1703 of 2020

¶37

It is made clear that if the petitioners fail to

¶38

comply with the above, the respondent No.2 shall be entitled to seek reopening of the present petition.

¶39

Respondent No.2 acknowledges receipt of two demand drafts for Rs.5,00,000/- each.

¶40

The respondent No.2, learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 have affixed their signatures to the order sheet maintained by this Court in token of the acceptance of the above.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

SMA

¶43

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Jahangeer Ulla Khan v. State by Kadugondana Halli Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jahangeer Ulla Khan v. State by Kadugondana Halli Ps

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

Mr Manjunath B S Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Johnson a @ John Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Shashikanth M N @ Shammi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mylarappa Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

K N Bhavya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. K. Prasad Vs Sri. C. N. Ramesh