Karnataka High Court
Syed Tanveer Ahmed vs The State Of Karnatka & Anr on 26 April, 2016
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH APRIL, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200558/2016
BETWEEN
SYED TANVEER AHMED
S/O SYED MOINODDIN INAMDAR
AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O TANVEER MANZIL, JAMA MASJID
NEAR JHANDA KATTA,
VIJAYAPURA. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.M. ALLUR, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY MAHILA P.S.
KALABURAGI DISTRICT
KARNATAKA STATE- 585 101
2. SMT. SYED WAJIDA MUBIN
W/O SYED TANVEER AHMED
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O TANVEER MANZIL, JAMA MASJID
NEAR JHANDA KATTA, VIJAYAPUR
NOW RESIDING AT H.NO.11-1067/A,
MSK MILL, ZEELANABAD
2
KALABURAGI- 585 102. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH YELI, ADDL. SPP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE PETITION U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.4912/2013
PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. JMFC COURT,
KALABURAGI AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THRERTO,
WHICH IS REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/SEC.498(a), 323, 504, 506 OF IPC, & U/SEC. 3 &
4 OF D.P. ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, the second respondent and their counsels are present before the Court. The petitioner and the second respondent are the husband and wife respectively.
2. The petitioner has filed this petition for quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No.4912/2013 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 3 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Section 3 & 4 of the DP Act.
Sri Liyakath Fareed Ustad, learned counsel, has filed vakalath on behalf of the second respondent.
3. The offence punishable u/s.498A of IPC and some other provisions are non compoundable in nature. Therefore, the parties have approached this Court for getting the remedy as they have compounded the offences.
4. The petitioner and the second respondent have filed a joint memo before this Court. The second respondent has also filed an affidavit wherein she has stated that due to some differences between them, she filed a criminal case against the petitioner. She has further stated that due to the advice of the elders of the family and also friends, the parties have amicably settled the dispute amongst themselves and they have decided to live happily together in future. In order to 4 facilitate them to live happily, they request this Court to quash the criminal case.
5. In this regard, it is worth to mention here the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 in the case of Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and another, wherein, the Apex Court has laid down certain guidelines as to under what circumstances and in which cases, the Court can record the compromise and quash the proceedings u/s.482 of Cr.P.C. which reads thus -
"The criminal cases having
overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil
flavour stand on a different footing. Offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or like transactions or offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and parties have resolved their entire dispute, High Court may quash criminal proceedings. High Court, in such cases, must 5 consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between parties and whether to secure ends of justice. It is appropriate the criminal case is put to an end and therefore the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding."
Coming back to the facts of this case that this is a matrimonial matter between the husband and wife and it is admitted that the husband and wife have joined and residing together and they want to have happy married life in future. Therefore, they want to square up all the disputes and differences between themselves. Therefore, they request this Court to quash the entire proceedings.
6. As this case exactly falls under the category of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra, 6 there is no legal impediment for this Court to quash the entire proceedings as sought for. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The parties are permitted to compound the offences. Consequently, all further proceedings in CC No.4912/2013 pending on the file of the II Addl. JMFC Court, Kalaburagi are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*