Allowed

Smt Haleema Begum v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Aug 2024CRL.P/200965/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calaburgi Bench High Court allowed a quashing petition under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under Sections 498A, 504, etc. IPC. The court held that since the parties synthesized the dispute in a matrimonial suit and no objection was raised against the quashing, continuing the trial was futile and amounted to an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.364/2023 against petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 are quashed.

Smt Haleema Begum Vs the State of Karnataka — Domestic Violence | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6175 CRL.P No. 200965 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200965 OF 2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT. HALEEMA BEGUM W/O NOOR MAHAMAD AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS HOUSE HOLD, RESIDENT OF BAILMARCHAD VILLAGE MANVI, TALUK MANVI DISTRICT RAICHUR 584 203.

¶7

SMT. SADIQA BEGUM W/O CHAND PASHA D/O NOOR MOHAMAD AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD, RESIDENT OF POLICE QUARTERS, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT RAMANAGARA 562 159.

¶8

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. SYED MAHEBOOB PASHA @ MAHEBOOB KURDI S/O SYED KHASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 5 GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR PRANAGAMMA TEMPLE, NOOR MOHALLA, KURDI VILLAGE TALUK MANVI, DISTRICT RAICHUR 584 203.

¶10

HAJI MALLNGA BABU S/O NOOR AHMED AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BAILMARCHAD VILLAGE, MANVI TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR-584 203.

¶11

¶12

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6175 CRL.P No. 200965 of 2023

¶13

NOOR MOHAMMED @ NOOR AHEMMED S/O KHASIM SAB, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BAILMARCHAD VILLAGE, MANVI TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR-584 203. (PETITIONER NOS. 4 & 5 ARE IMPLEADED V/O DT.20.08.2024) …PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SINDHANUR TOWN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DISTRICT KALABURAGI 585 103.

¶17

SMT. HUSSAIN BANU W/O HAJI MALLANG BABA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCCUPATION HOUSE HOLD RESIDENT OF BAILMARCHAD VILLAGE MANVI, TALUK MANVI DISTRICT RAICHUR 584203, NOW AT VENKATESHWAR COLONY, SINDHANUR TALUK SINDHANUR DISTRICT RAICHUR 584 128.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. F M INAMDAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ANNAVAYA M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND FURTHER QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.3 TO 5 C.C. NO. 364/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SINDHANUR, REGISTERED ON THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 SINDHANOOR TOWN POLICE STATION, DIST. RAICHUR IN CRIME NO. 8/2023 BASED ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6175 CRL.P No. 200965 of 2023

¶23

498(A), 504, 323, 506, 109, 354, 448, R/W 34 OF IPC, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 323, 506, 109, 354, 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

Petitioner-accused No.3 is the mother-in-law; accused No.4 is the married sister-in-law; accused No.5 is the brother-inlaw; accused No.1 is the husband; and accused No.2 is the fatherin-law of the de facto complainant. The allegations against the petitioners-accused are that they subjected the de facto complainant to both mental and physical cruelty, assaulted her, and outraged her modesty.

¶29

The de facto complainant instituted a suit in O.S.No.23/2023 before the Prl. District and Family Court, seeking the dissolution of her marriage with accused No.1. In those proceedings, they entered into a settlement by filing a compromise petition. In terms of the settlement, their marriage was dissolved, and the de facto complainant agreed to withdraw all criminal cases against the petitioners-accused. Respondent No.2, the de facto complainant, has no objection to quashing the impugned proceedings.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6175 CRL.P No. 200965 of 2023

¶32

Though the offences alleged against the petitionersaccused are cognizable and non-compoundable, given the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, subjecting the petitioners-accused to trial would be futile. The probability of their conviction is remote and bleak in light of the settlement reached between them. Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶35

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.364/2023 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, at Sindhanur, insofar it relates to the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 herein is hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶37

Smt Haleema Begum v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Haleema Begum v. the 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

Smt Aruna a L Vs the Authorized Officer

T K Vasudevan Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank

Sri. M. H. Uma Shankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Anand S/O Dasharath Kullur Vs the State of Karnataka

H. B. Devaraj Vs H. K. Shivakumar

K.N. Raghavendra Vs K.T.Narayanashetty