Karnataka High Court

Mirajuddin And Ors vs State Of Karnataka And Anr on 13 September, 2021

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

                             1

                                                       R
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  KALABURAGI BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

                          BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ


        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201085/2021
                           C/W
        CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201094/2021

Crl.P.No.201085/2021
Between:

1.   Mr.Mirajuddin
     S/o Adam Sab Badagher,
     Aged 32 years,
     R/o Shastri Chowk,
     Near SBI, Jewargi,
     Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.

2.   Mrs.Malan Bee
     W/o Adam Sab Badagher,
     Aged 51 years, R/o Shastri Chowk,
     Near SBI, Jewargi,
     Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.

3.   Mr.Gousuddin S/o Adam Sab Badagher,
     Aged 29 years,
     R/o Shastri Chowk, Near SBI,
     Jewargi, Dist : Kalaburagi.

4.   Mr.Tousif s/o Adam Sab Badagher,
     Aged 27 years, R/o Shastri Chowk,
     Near SBI, Jewargi, Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.
                                 2


5.   Mr.Mansoor s/o Adam Sab Bagwan,
     Aged 25 years, R/o Shastri Chowk,
     Near SBI Bank, Jewargi,
     Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.

6.   Mr.Farooq s/o Adam Sab Bagwan,
     Aged 23 years, R/o Shastri Chowk,
     Near SBI Bank, Jewargi,
     Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.

                                             ... Petitioners

(By Sri Abdul Muqhtadir, Advocate)

And:

1. State of Karnataka,
   By Jewargi Police Station,
   Represented by HCGP,
   High Court Building,
   High Court of Karnataka,
   Kalaburgai - 585 103.

2. Smt.Shireen D/o Azeem Sab Tougao
   Age 25 years, Occ : Household,
   R/o Shastri Chowk, Jewargi,
   Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.
                                           ... Respondents

(Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP for R1;
 Sri Syed Talha Hashmi, Advocate for R2)

    This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the charge-
sheet    bearing   No.59/2020      and    proceeding       in
S.C.No.68/2021 of Jewargi Police Station, in Crime
No.189/2019 pending on the file of Hon'ble Prl. District and
Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi for offence U/s.143, 147,
341, 323, 498A, 307, 504, 506 and 149 of IPC.
                                 3


Crl.P.No.201094/2021

Between:

1.   Mrs.Rasool Bee W/o Azim Sab Tougao,
     Aged 43 years, R/o Shastri Chowk,
     Jewargi, Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.

2.   Mrs.Shireen W/o Meraj @ Mirajuddin,
     Aged 25 years, R/o Shastri Chowk,
     Jewargi, Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.

3.   Mr.Awez @ Aveja S/o Azim Sab Tougao,
     Aged 23 years, R/o Shastri Chowk,
     Jewargi, Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.

4.   Mr.Rafeeq Moratgi S/o Mitte Sab Moratgi,
     Aged 34 years, R/o Lakappa Layout,
     Jewargi, Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.

5.   Mr.Ibrahim Sab S/o Moinuddin Mirchi,
     Aged 58 years, R/o Shastri Chowk,
     Jewargi, Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.

6.   Mrs.Sabera W/o Mitte Sab Moratgi,
     Aged 53 years, R/o Lakappa Layout,
     Jewargi, Dist : Kalaburagi - 585 310.

                                             ... Petitioners

(By Sri Syed Talha Hashmi, Advocate)

And:

1. State of Karnataka,
   By Jewargi Police Station,
   Represented by HCGP,
   High Court Building,
   High Court of Karnataka,
                             4


  Kalaburagi - 585 103.

2. Mr.Meraj S/o Adam Sab,
   Age 32 years,
   R/o Shastri Chowk,
   Near SBI Bank, Jewargi - 585 310.

3. Smt.Malan Bee W/o Adam Sab,
   Age : 51 years, R/o Shastri Chowk,
   Near SBI Bank, Jewargi - 585 310.
                                         ... Respondents

(Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP for R1;
 Sri Abdul Muqhtadir, Advocate for R2 and R3)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to quash the charge-
sheet    bearing   No.285/2017       and   proceeding   in
C.C.No.330/2018 of Jewargi Police Station, in Crime
No.206/2017 pending on the file of Court of Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC at Jewargi for offence U/s.143, 147, 323,
324, 504, 506, 354 and 149 of IPC.

      These petitions coming on for Admission this day,
the Court made the following:

                       ORDER

Criminal Petition No.201085/2021 has been

preferred to quash the charge-sheet bearing No.59/2020

and the proceedings in S.C.No.68/2021 pending on the file

of Principal District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi and

Criminal Petition No.201094/2021 is preferred to quash

the charge-sheet bearing No.285/2017 and the

proceedings in C.C.No.330/2018 pending on the file of

Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Jewargi.

2. Though these petitions are listed for admission,

with the consent of both the learned counsel appearing for

the respective parties, as well as learned HCGP, these

matters are heard together and disposed of by this

common order.

3. The brief facts leading to these petitions are as

under :

      The      marriage      of     petitioner     No.1      in

Crl.P.No.201085/2021       and    respondent     No.2      was

solemnized    on    09.09.2012.    For   about    one     year,

respondent No.2 was looked after properly by her husband

and in-laws and thereafter she was meted with physical

and mental cruelty. On account of the same, she started

residing in her parent's house along with her children. It is

alleged that on 23.08.2019 at about 9.00 a.m. all the

accused came to the house of her parents and picked-up

quarrel, abused and also assaulted her etc. Crime

No.189/2019 was registered at Jewargi Police Station,

Kalaburagi on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2. On

completion of investigation, charge-sheet was fled against

the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 for offences punishable

under Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, 498A, 307, 504 and

506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal code.

4. Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioner No.2

is the mother and petitioners No.3 to 6 are the brothers of

petitioner No.1.

5. In Criminal Petition No.201094/2021,

petitioner No.2 is the wife, petitioner No.1 is her mother

and petitioners No.3 and 6 are other relatives. It is alleged

that after the marriage of respondent No.2 with petitioner

No.2, she started quarreling with her husband for petty

reasons and thereafter left her matrimonial house and

started staying in her parental house and in spite of

conducting the panchayath in the presence of elders, she

did not come and join her husband and at the time of

panchayath all her relatives picked-up quarrel and also

assaulted the complainant with sticks etc. Crime

No.207/2017 was registered at Jewargi Police Station,

Kalaburagi on a complaint lodged by respondent No.3, i.e.,

mother-in-law of petitioner No.2.

6. Learned counsel appearing for both the party

have filed joint memorandum of settlement in the

respective petitions signed by all the parties as well as the

learned counsel appearing for petitioners and the

complainant.

7. It is stated that a civil suit bearing

O.S.No.27/2018 was filed by the husband for annulment of

marriage and based on a compromise petition filed in the

said suit, the suit has been disposed of and the marriage

between the parties has been annulled. The certified copy

of the compromise petition is produced at Annexure-G and

certified copy of the decree is produced at Annexure-H.

8. It is stated that the parties have resolved all

the disputes between them and dissolution of marriage has

been recorded by the Civil Court in the above suit and the

respective parties have agreed to withdraw all the criminal

complaints filed against each other.

9. It is submitted that out-come of criminal

proceedings is a result of matrimonial discord which is

private in nature and therefore in view of settlement

entered between the parties the respective complainants

are not interested in continuing the criminal proceedings

initiated against each other.

10. Respective petitioners as well as complainants

in both the petitions are present before the court. It is

submitted by complainants that in view of the settlement,

they are not interested to continue the criminal

proceedings initiated by them.

11. In the instant case, the parties are closely

related to each other. The O.S.No.27/2018 filed by the

husband has been disposed of in terms of the compromise

entered between the parties. The dispute between the

parties is purely private in nature and the same is on

account of the matrimonial discord. In view of the

compromise entered between both the parties, the

continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in

futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute

between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored.

In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the following

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

12. In Narinder Singh and others vs State of

Punjab and another, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, the

Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 8 and 24 has held as

under:

" "8. We find that there are cases where the power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code to quash the proceedings in those offences which are uncompoundable has been recognised. The only difference is that under Section 320(1) of the Code, no permission is required from the Court in those cases which are compoundable though the Court has discretionary power to refuse to compound the offence. However, compounding under Section 320(1) of the Code is permissible only in minor offences or in non-serious offences.

Likewise, when the parties reach settlement in respect of the offences enumerated in Section 320(2) of the Code, compounding is permissible but it requires the approval of the Court. Insofar as serious offences are concerned, quashing of criminal proceedings upon compromise is within the discretionary powers of the High Court. In such cases, the power is exercised under Section 482 of the Code and proceedings are quashed. Contours of these powers were described by this Court in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, which has been followed and further explained/elaborated in so many cases thereafter, which are taken note of in the discussion that follows hereinafter."

"24. The two rival parties have amicably settled the disputes between themselves and buried the hatchet. Not only this, they say that since they are neighbours, they want to live like good neighbours and that was the reason for restoring friendly ties. In such a scenario, should the court give its imprimatur to such a settlement? The answer depends on various incidental aspects which need serious discourse. The legislators have categorically recognized that those offences which are covered by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code are concededly those which not only do not fall within the category of heinous crimes but also

which are personal between the parties. Therefore, this provision recognizes where there is a compromise between the parties, the court is to act at the said compromise and quash the proceedings. However, even in respect of such offences not covered within the four corners of Section 320 of the Code, the High Court is given power under Section 482 of the Code to accept the compromise between the parties and quash the proceedings. The guiding factor is as to whether the ends of justice would justify such exercise of power, both the ultimate consequences may be acquittal or dismissal of indictment. This is so recognized in various judgments taken note of above." "

13. In B.S. Joshi and others v. State of

Haryana and another, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 675,

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that High Court in

exercise of its inherent powers can quash criminal

proceedings or FIR or complaint and Section 320 of the

Code does not limit or affect the powers under Section 482

of the Code.

14. In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and

another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon'ble

Apex Court, at para 58 has held as under:

"58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that

capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice shall be casualty and ends of justice shall be defeated. The above list is illustrative and not exhaustive. Each case will depend on its own facts and no hard-and-fast category can be prescribed."

15. Considering the over all facts and

circumstances and considering the joint memorandum of

settlement filed by the respective parties and in the light of

the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is

appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings initiated

against the petitioners so as to meet the ends of justice.

Hence, the following :