Disposed

Mr Moosa Kaleemulla Khan v. Mrs Nagma Nikath

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024WP/10904/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband sought quashing of dowry-harassment criminal proceedings; parties settled in mediation agreeing to dissolution terms and closure of the case. The Court disposed of the writ petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.577/2016 pending before XI ACJM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, stand quashed.

Mr Moosa Kaleemulla Khan Vs Mrs Nagma Nikath — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44253 WP No. 10904 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 10904 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. MOOSA KALEEMULLA KHAN, S/O LATE IBRAHIM KHAN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO. 20, 1^ST MAIN, KUVEMPU NAGAR, NEW GUDDAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 026

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUHAS T.L., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MRS. NAGMA NIKATH D/O MOHBOOB PASHA SHAHEB, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDNG AT NO. 23, SAMIULLA BUILDING, 3^RD FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS, POLICE RANGAPPA BLOCK, OPP. POLICE STATION, K.G. HALLI, BANGALORE 560 045

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, HALASURGATE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU 560 008.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ G., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R2)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:44253 WP No. 10904 of 2024

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, PERUSE THE SAME, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE PROCEEDING PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE IN CC NO. 577/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-B.

¶17

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

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

The petitioner calls in question the proceedings in C.C.No.577/2016 registered for the offences punishable under

¶21

Sections 506 and 498A of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶22

Heard Sri. Suhas T.L., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Nagaraj G., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl.SPP, appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶23

During the pendency of these

¶24

it transpires that the parties to the lis have entered into a settlement and the memorandum of settlement reads as follows:

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:44253 WP No. 10904 of 2024

¶27

" MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SECTION 89 OF CPC READ WITH RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE KARNATAKA CIVIL PROCEDURE (MEDIATION) KULES, 2005.

¶28

The parties above named beg to submit as follows:-

¶29

I. The aforesaid petition was referred to mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. In the course of mediation, they have resolved their dispute and have agreed to the following terms and conditions:

¶30

The plaintiff has filed the above petition Under Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C. R/W Sec.2 (TV) & (VIII) (a) of Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act 1939 between the plaintiff and defendant solemnized on 22.09.2013 at Masjid-EIsmabad, Palace, Basavanagudi, Bangalore as per Muslim rites and customs.

¶31

Both the parties state that from the wedlock, they have one son by name Mohammed Ibrahim Khan aged about 7 years. The minor son is presently under the care and custody of the mother/plaintiff.

¶32

That the parties herein due to irreconcilable differences between them and due to incompatibility of temperaments, have been living separately from 2015 and thus they are unable to lead a married life. As such they have agreed to get their marriage dissolved on the following terms. 4. It is agreed between the parties that the care and custody of the minor child shall be with the petitioner/mother for all purposes and she will be the legal guardian of the minor child. The defendant shall not exercise visitation rights over the minor child.

¶33

Both the parties agree that they shall have no claims with regard to maintenance/permanent alimóny against each other.

¶34

Both the parties agree that they shall have no claims with regard to movable or immovable property belonging to each other.

¶35

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44253 WP No. 10904 of 2024

¶36

The plaintiff agrees to withdraw Cri.Misc.813/2018 filed by her against the defendant for maintenance pending before the V Addl. Judge. Family Court al Bengaluru.

¶37

The plaintiff agrees to co-operate/close C.C.No. 577/2016 filed by her against the defendant under section 498A pending before VI ACMM., at Bengaluru.

¶38

Both the parties agree that they shall not interfere in the lives of each other in future.

¶39

II. In view of the aforesaid agreement entered into between the parties, the parties pray that this Court be pleased to dispose of the above case in terms of the aforesaid agreement.

¶40

III. Parties will appear on 15.06.2023 before the Court for passing orders in terms of the agreement."

¶41

In light of the settlement arrived at between the

¶42

parties as afore-quoted, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i. Writ Petition is disposed.

¶45

ii. Proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.577/2016 pending before the XI ACJM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, stands quashed.

¶46

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶47

SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5 CT:SNN

Mr Moosa Kaleemulla Khan v. Mrs Nagma Nikath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Moosa Kaleemulla Khan v. Mrs Nagma Nikath

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

A S Gangothri Vs the State of Karnataka by

Mr Rahul Chandrashekar Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka

Nasrulla Shariff Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Chowdappa Bhaskar. Vs Kullachanda Chinnappa Subbaiah

Sri. Devaraju S Vs State by Maddur P.S.

Smt. Chandrika Tilak Raj Vs State of Karnataka by