Karnataka High Court
Nemath Hussain vs State By Channagiri Police ... on 20 January, 2021
Author: K.Somashekar
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7728 OF 2018
BETWEEN
1. Nemath Hussain
S/o Abdul Vahid
Aged about 32 years
R/a Santhebennur Village
Channagiri Taluk
Davanagere - 577552.
2. Abdul Wahid
S/o Late Hussain Saab
Aged about 72 years
R/a Santhebennur Village
Channagiri Taluk
Davanagere - 577552.
3. Asifa Begum
W/o Abdul Vahid
Aged about 62 years
R/a Santhebennur Village
Channagiri Taluk
Davanagere - 577552.
4. Zakir Hussain
S/o Abdul Vahid
Aged about 36 years
R/a #24, Mahabub Nagar
3rd Main, 2nd Cross
Davanagere Town
Davangere Taluk &
:2:
District Pin-577001.
5. Reshma Sulthana
W/o Shaik Iqbal
Aged about 40 years
R/a 4th Cross
Shivanand Nagar
Near Tolnaka
Dharwad-580001.
6. Rihana Sulthana
W/o Shaik Yakoob
Aged about 38 years
R/a Jannath Nagar
5th Cross Down
Sagar, Sagar Taluk
Shivamogga District-577401.
7. Ruksana Sulthana
W/o Sayed Ashfaq Ahamad
Aged about 36 years
R/a C$/05, High Court Staff Quarters
Belur, Dharwad High Court
Dharwad-580011.
8. Raziya Sulthana
W/o Syed Nizamuddin
Aged about 35 years
R/a Anrkali, NH-4
Bharamasagara
Chitradurga-577519.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. Chandrahasa Rai, Advocate for
Sri. Arun Ashok Gadag - Advocate)
AND
1. State by Channagiri Police Station
Davanagere District
:3:
Rep. by HCGP
High Court of Karnataka
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Chandinibanu
D/o Imam Hussain Sab
Aged about 26 years
R/a 4th Cross
Tippu Nagar
Channagiri Town
Davanagere - 577213.
... Respondents
(By Smt. Rashmi Jadhav - HCGP for R-1;
Sri. N K Siddeswara - Advocate for R-2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the FIR
in Cr.No.227/2017 and all further proceedings in
Cr.No.227/2017 initiated by the Respondent No.1 Police
now registered as C.C.No.211/2018 pending on the file of
Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri, Davanagere for
the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC and
Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this
day, the court made the following:
ORDER
Sri Chandrahasa Rai, learned counsel for the
petitioners appearing on behalf of Sri Arun Ashok Gadag,
Sri N.K.Siddeswara, learned counsel for respondent No.2
and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State along with
Sri Nemath Hussain - Petitioner No.1 and Smt.Chandani
Banu - Respondent No.2 are present before the Court
physically.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioners to quash
the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.211/2018 arising out
of case in Crime No.227/2017 for the offence punishable
under Section 498(A) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act pending before the Principal Civil Judge
and JMFC, Channagiri.
3. A compromise petition has been filed by first
petitioner and second respondent herein under Section
320 read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to dispose of the
present petition in terms of the compromise petition.
Petitioner No.1 and Respondent No.2 and their respective
counsel have subscribed their signatures in this
compromise petition.
4. In the compromise petition it is stated that the
marriage between 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent was
solemnized on 01.05.2016 according to the customs
prevailing in their society. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are
the father-in-law and mother-in-law of 2nd respondent and
petitioner Nos.4o to 8 are brother-in-laws and sister-in-
laws of the second respondent. During the pendency of
the above criminal petition, at the intervention of elders,
relatives and friends, the matter has been settled in
between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. In
terms of the compromise, the first petitioner has agreed to
pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the second respondent as
permanent alimony and so also, maintenance.
Accordingly, the second respondent has agreed to receive
the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as stated in the compromise
petition. The said amount has been paid by way of
Demand Draft bearing No.017979 dated 19.01.2021
drawn on HDFC Bank, Jayanagar Branch in the name of
second respondent and she has accepted the same as full
and final settlement.
5. Further, it is stated that the second respondent
shall not claim any maintenance, permanent alimony, any
share in the movable and immovable properties belonging
to the first petitioner and accepts the above settlement
money as full and final settlement.
6. Further at clause (iv) of the compromise, it is
stated that the second respondent has filed
Crl.Misc.P.No.92/2017 against the first petitioner on the
file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance against
petitioner No.1. In view of the settlement arrived between
the first petitioner and second respondent on 13.02.2020,
the second respondent had filed a memo for dismissal of
the same and in terms of the said memo, the case in
Crl.Misc.P.No.92/2017 came to be dismissed as settled
out of the court.
7. Further, the first petitioner and second
respondent have undertaken to dissolve their marriage by
way of Decree in the Divorce petition already filed by the
first petitioner against the second respondent in
O.S.No.54/2020 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC, Channagiri after disposal of this petition.
8. In view of the settlement arrived by the first
petitioner and second respondent, the second respondent
has no objection to allow the present petition and to
quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners in
C.C.No.211/2018 pending on the file of Principal Civil
Judge and JMFC, Channagiri against the petitioners for
the aforesaid offences.
9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012
(10) SCC 303), the proceedings initiated against the
petitioners / accused requires to be quashed in view of the
settlement arrived at between the parties. In the said
judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had extensively
dealt with matters relating to Section 482 Cr.P.C. and
Section 320 Cr.P.C. relating to the inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in respect of
compoundable offences where compromise is arrived at
between the parties. It has been held in the said judgment
that criminal proceedings can be quashed by the Court, if
the Court is satisfied that the matter has been settled
between the parties amicably and the parties are
interested to restore peace and harmony between them.
The said power requires to be exercised in the present
petition. Therefore, keeping in view the ratio of the
reliance and so also the dispute arising between the first
petitioner and the second respondent having been settled
and that the compromise petition is filed in this regard, it
is appropriate to accept the compromise petition and so
also the petition requires to be allowed in order to
maintain harmonious relationship between the parties, in
future. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1
to 8 is hereby allowed. Consequently, the case in
C.C.No.211/2018 arising out of Crime No.227/2017
pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Channagiri are hereby quashed.
The Demand Draft for a sum of Rupees Eight Lakhs
has been received by the second respondent/complainant
as full and final settlement in the presence of the counsel
for the parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DKB
