Allowed

Sri Mohammed Shabbir Baig v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2024CRL.P/11218/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Matrimonial cruelty and dowry case quashed after husband's family and wife filed a joint compromise memo; wife acknowledged settlement and receipt of Rs.7,50,000. The court permitted compounding under Section 320 Cr.PC read with Section 482 and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.158/2022 and proceedings in CC.No.29065/2023 quashed; permission granted to compound offences.

Sri Mohammed Shabbir Baig Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:49142 CRL.P No. 11218 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11218 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MOHAMMED SHABBIR BAIG C/O. M SHAFIULLA BAIG, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶9

SRI. MOHAMMED SHOWAIB BAIG FATHER NAME UNKNOWN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶10

SMT. SHAMEER BEGAM W/O MERZA SHAFIULLA BAIG, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶11

ALL PETITIONERS ARE R/AT: NO-2-1-49, J.V. STREET, MUKKADIPET, HINDUPUR, ANANTHAPURAMU, ANDHRA PRADESH - 515 201

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. NAVEED AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY EAST ZONE WOMEN POLICE STATION BANGALORE, REP BY ITS, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶17

SMT. TANVEEN NISHAT W/O MOHAMMED SHABBIR BAIG, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.62, 2^ND MAIN, KUSHAL NAGAR, K.G. HALLI,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:49142 CRL.P No. 11218 of 2022

¶20

BANGALORE - 560 045

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. WASEEM AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR CR.NO.158/2022 DATED 17.09.2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 6^TH A.C.M.M COURT NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT REGISTERED BY THE PULAKESHINAGAR P.S., CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR AND COMPLAINT ARE AT ANNEXURE A AND B RESPECTIVELY.

¶24

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are present before the Court and they are identified by their respective counsel. Petitioner No.1 is also representing petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed IA No.1 of 2024 under Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.PC, seeking permission to compound the offences.

¶28

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have filed joint memo, which reads as under:

¶29

"The petitioners and respondent no.2 are most respectfully submits as follows:

¶30

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:49142 CRL.P No. 11218 of 2022

¶31

1. It is submitted that the petitioners and respondent no.2 are filling this joint memo of compromise before this Hon'ble court.

¶32

2. It is submitted that at the intervention of the elders and the family members of the petitioners and respondent no.2, both the parties have decided to resolve their dispute accordingly they enter into this compromise that 2^nd respondent have no objection whatsoever for quashing of the criminal case in CC.No.29065/2023 (Crime No- 0158/2022) pending on the file of VI Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶33

3. It is submitted that as agreed by the parties Respondent No.2 received sum of Rs.7,50,000/(Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) by way of Demand Draft dated 19^th Day of October, 2024 drawn at State Bank of India, Hindupur Branch, Bangalore. Respondent No.2 having accepted the aforesaid sum of Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) has agreed to settle all her claims/disputes with the petitioners and she has no any other claim whatsoever against the petitioners.

¶34

4. It is further submitted that the both petitioners and respondent no.2 have agreed that they have no grievance against each other and it was a case of misunderstanding that the criminal and domestic violence cases were filed against the petitioners by the respondent no.2. in the interest of their future and due to the intervention of the elders of the

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:49142 CRL.P No. 11218 of 2022

¶36

petitioners and the respondent no.2 both, the Petitioner's and Respondent No.2 agree to close all the criminal cases.

¶37

5. It submitted that both parties have agreed to resolve their disputes amicably, as such 2^nd respondent - Complainant has also agreed and promised to withdraw Application filed by her under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in Crl. Misc. No.163/2023 before Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court - I, at M.G.Road, Mayohall, Bangalore 01.

¶38

6. It is submitted that the respondent no.2 has agreed without force or coercion that she have no objection on quashing of the FIR and Charge sheet in CC.No.29065/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act against the Petitioners pending on the file of VI Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in the interest of justice and equity. Hence, this Joint memo of compromise."

¶39

Petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 have filed joint affidavit, admitting the contents of joint memo.

¶40

On enquiry, respondent No.2 admits receipt of demand draft for Rs.7,50,000/- as referred to in joint memo and also submits that she has no objection to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:49142 CRL.P No. 11218 of 2022

¶42

Joint affidavit and the submissions are placed on

¶43

record.

¶44

In view of the above, IA No.1 of 2024 filed under

¶45

Section 320 read with Section 482 of Cr.PC is allowed. Permission is accorded to compound the offences. Joint memo is accepted.

¶46

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶49

(ii) FIR registered in Crime No.158/2022 of East Zone

¶50

Women Police Station, pending in CC.No.29065/2023 on the file of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323,

¶51

504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is hereby quashed.

¶52

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶53

SPV

¶54

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 64

Sri Mohammed Shabbir Baig v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Mohammed Shabbir Baig 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramanujam K Vs Srinivas Bhagil Dhaya

Sri.C.Boregowda Vs Sri.M.Prakash

Sri. Badarinath N v Vs M/S Siddarth Enterprises

Sri Kiran Kumar D H Vs Sri Ashwin K

Sri Pradeep @ Mallesha Vs the State of Karnataka

Prajwal @ Halla Vs the State of Karnataka