Sri. Mohammed Altamash Vs State of Karnataka

SMT. SHIREEN WIFE OF SRI. MOHAMMED TAUKIR ALAM, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE R/AT: GRAM DOGHRA, POST DOGHRA, THANA JALE, DISTRICT DARBHANGA, BIHAR - 847 302.

¶13

SRI. MOHAMMED SHAMIM AHMED @ SHAMEEM SALIK S/O SRI. ABDUL KALAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:33474 CRL.P No. 1259 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

R/AT NO. 209/A-1, NEAR MASJID-E-MINHAJ, MINHAJ NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. MOHAMED ZULFIKHAR AHAMED, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶22

BY THE S.H.O,

¶23

EAST ZONE WOMEN POLICE STATION,

¶24

BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING ANNEXE, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶25

SMT. ALIYA BANU WIFE OF SRI MOHAMMED ALTAMASH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, NO. 316, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 1^ST STAGE, 2^ND BLOCK, YASIN NAGAR, HBR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 045.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. M. R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MOHAMMED PASHA C., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶28

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.0203/2024, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 EAST ZONE WOMEN POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A AND 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU.

¶29

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

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:33474 CRL.P No. 1259 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.0203/2024 registered by the respondent/Police for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶36

The petitioner No.1/husband and respondent No.2/wife, who is the complainant, are present before this Court. The father of petitioner No.1 as well as the parents of respondent No.2/complainant are also present. Both parties submit that the matrimonial dispute has been amicably settled. Reliance is placed on the settlement recorded before the Mediation Centre. In terms of the said settlement, petitioner No.1/husband has already paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to respondent No.2/wife. As the balance sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was to be paid, this Court directed the husband to arrange for the same. Since the

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:33474 CRL.P No. 1259 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

cheque tendered by the husband on the previous date was not accepted, in compliance with the direction of this Court, petitioner No.1 has today paid Rs.2,50,000/- in cash to respondent No.2/wife in open Court, in the presence of her parents. Thus, the full settlement amount of Rs.5,00,000/- stands paid in terms of the mediation settlement. Respondent No.2 has expressed no objection for quashing of the criminal proceedings.

¶40

This Court is conscious of the fact that the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC is noncompoundable. However, considering that the husband and wife have resolved their disputes amicably, and that respondent No.2 has voluntarily consented to quashment, coupled with the fact that the dispute appears to be personal in nature between the two families and does not involve any heinous crime, this Court, in order to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, deems

¶41

it appropriate to quash the proceedings in Crime No.0203/2024.

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:33474 CRL.P No. 1259 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

On specific query from the Court, respondent

¶46

No.2/wife, who is present, has acknowledged the receipt of Rs.2,50,000/-. Her parents, who are also present, confirm the said receipt and undertake to keep the balance amount in deposit. Accordingly, the parents of respondent No.2 are directed to invest the said sum of Rs.2,50,000/in a Fixed Deposit for a period of three years, with liberty to prematurely withdraw the same in the event of the marriage of respondent No.2 being fixed. Since respondent No.2 has now received the full and final settlement, she has returned the cheque earlier issued by petitioner No.1.

¶47

In view of the amicable settlement, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

(i) The petition is allowed ;

¶50

(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.0203/2024 registered by the respondent/Police for the

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:33474 CRL.P No. 1259 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending before the Court of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶55

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶56

CA

¶57

List No.: 4 Sl No.: 5

Sri. Mohammed Altamash v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Mohammed Altamash v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nanjaiah Vs State of Karnataka by

S. Muhammed Sagar Vs Ibrahim

Sri Manjunatha N (A1) Vs State by Bidadi Police Station

Sri.Panchaksharaiah Ganachari Vs State by

Sri Santhosh Kumar v Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Umanath Bhandari Vs State of Karnataka