Mr. Khaleeq Ur Rehman I S Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 25.01.2024 AGAINST THIS PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.48/2024 OF THE CHANDRA LAYOUT P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLVI A.C.J.M AT BENGALURU.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following

¶35

reliefs:-

¶36

“Wherefore the petitioners above named humbly prays before the Hon’ble court to quash the FIR dated 25.01.2024 against this petitioners in Crime No.48/2024 of the Chandralayout P.S., for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act pending on the file of XLVI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel for 2^nd respondent – complainant have filed a Joint Memo dated 10.06.2025 duly signed by the petitioners, 2^nd respondent and their respective counsel and the same is taken on record.

¶38

3 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:19828 CRL.P No. 7344 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2 – complainant and their respective counsel are physically present before the Court and they admit the contents of the aforesaid Joint Memo, which reads as under:-

¶42

“ MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE PETITION BY WAY OF JOINT MEMO FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

¶43

We Mr.Khaleeq Ur Rehman I.S., S/o S P Mohammed Ibrahim, Aged about 43 years, R/a No.1288/C6 T K Road, Mandi Mohalla, Chennapatna – 562160 and S. P. Mohammed Ibrahim, S/o Late Shaik Mohammed Peer, Aged about 79 years, R/a No.1288/C6 T K Road, Mandi Mohalla, Chennapatna – 562 160 and Smt. Rasheeda Banu W/o S P Mohammed Ibrahim, Aged about 73 years, and Syeeda Misba Anjum, W/o Khaleeq Ur Rehman, Aged about 29 years, R/a No.131 cross, Gangondhahalli, Bengaluru – 560 073 do hereby state as follows:

¶44

1. It is submitted, the petitioners and the complainant who is Respondent No.2, are well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the above petition, and hence we are swearing this joint memo.

¶45

2. We state that the petitioners are arrayed as Accused persons in Crime No.48/2024 for the alleged offences under section 498A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act.

¶46

4 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:19828 CRL.P No. 7344 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

3. W state that the above petition is filed by the petitioners prays to quash the quash the FIR dated 25.01.2024 against the petitioners in Crime No.48/2024 of the chandralayout PS for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act pending on the file of XLVI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶50

4. We state that, due to the intervention of wellwisher we have amicably arrived at a Compromise.

¶51

5. We state that the in view of the compromise arrived between the petitioners and respondents, the respondent No.2 has duly agreed to withdraw the case filed by her against the petitioner No.1 to 3 in Crime No.48/2024 for the alleged offences under section 498A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of D.P. Act.

¶52

6. We state that the petitioner no.1 and Respondent no.2 has obtained a mutual divorce by filing a petition under Order VII Rule 1 & 2, section 26 of PC R/w 7(1)(a) of Family courts act r/w Section 391(1)(3) of Mohammedan Law and by amending the petitioner has filed a joint memo. The learned VI Addl. Principal Judge Family Court, Bengaluru in OS 184/2025 by order dated 03.05.2025 has passed an order has accept the settlement report has dissolved the marriage solemnized between Petitioner

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:19828 CRL.P No. 7344 of 2025

¶54

5 -

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

No.1 and Respondent No.2 on 14.05.2017 at Ameena Bi memorial Hall, Nayandahalli, Bengaluru and a decree was drawn accordingly.

¶57

7. We state that, due intervention of well-wishers we entered into compromise, said compromise is entered into by us with our own will and there is no coercion of undue pressure created by any third parties to entire into this compromise.

¶58

8. It is submitted that both the parties state that the petitioners and Respondent No.2 have no other claims of whatsoever nature against each other past, present or further.

¶59

9. It is submitted that as per the settlement agreement the respondent no.2 had agreed to withdraw the case filed by her before Chandra Layout police station.

¶60

10. We state that, if this compromise petition is not accepted we will be put to greater hard ship and inconvenience which cannot be compensated in any manner.

¶61

Wherefore, we pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to accept this compromise petition by way of Joint Memo to Quash the FIR dated 25.01.2024 Crime No.48/2024 for the alleged offences under section 498A of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of DP Act to meet the ends of Justice.”

¶62

In view of the aforesaid settlement entered into

¶63

between the petitioners and 2^nd respondent, I pass the following:

¶64

6 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:19828 CRL.P No. 7344 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) Petition is disposed of in terms of the Joint Memo dated 10.06.2025.

¶69

(ii) The entire proceedings arising out of FIR dated 25.01.2024 in Crime No.48/2024 registered by the 1^st respondent – Police, for offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act, pending on the file of XLVI ACJM, Bangalore, insofar as the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed.

¶70

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶71

Srl.

Mr. Khaleeq Ur Rehman I S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Khaleeq Ur Rehman I S 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 Praveena G v Vs the State of Karnataka

C Srinivasulu, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Tejaswini Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahammad @ Mohammed Razak Mukkachary Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddappa v Kore Alias Siddarth Vs the State of Karnataka