Karnataka High Court
Shri. Amaan Ali Baig S/O Late Mirza Abid ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 April, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102234 OF 2021 (482)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. AMAAN ALI BAIG
S/O LATE MIRZA ABID ALI BAIG
AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE,
R/O. FLAT NO. 304,
PRIMALA APARTMENT,
T.V. TOWER ROAD,
JADHAV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. JOSHNA P. DHANAVE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. PRASHANT F. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
DHARWAD
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580001.
2. SMT. SHRUTI GHATNATTI
W/O AMAAN ALI BAIG
AGE. 31 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. FLAT NO. 304,
PARIMALA APARTMENT,
T.V. TOWER ROAD,
JADHAV NAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590001.
-2-
CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021
NOW RESIDING
AT: C/O JAGADISH GHATNATTI
JIN BUNGALOW, MAHALINGPUR,
TALUKA. BANHATTI,
DISTRICT. BAGALKOT-587312.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1
SRI T. M. NADAF AND SRI BHASKAR L. PATIL,
ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2021
PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-D, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 420, 504 AND 506 OF IPC, 1860
IN CC NO.350/2021 BEFORE THE II JMFC, BELAGAVI, AGAINST
THE PRESENT PETITIONER (ACCUSED) AND QUASHING THE
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.350/2021 PENDING BEFORE
THE II JMFC, BELAGAVI AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER
(ACCUSED).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner, who is arraigned as accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') to quash the order dated 25.06.2021 taking cognizance on the charge sheet filed for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') in -3- CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021 C.C.No.350/2021 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class-II Court, Belagavi.
2. In support of his petition, petitioner has contended that the allegations made against him are vague and cryptic, only to portray him as a demon. Absolutely no grounds are made out to initiate proceedings against him. In fact petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant knew each other from their college days. They fell in love and ultimately got married on 12.05.2017. After spending 7 long years of marriage along with the family members of petitioner, respondent No.2 has chosen to file a false complaint against the petitioner and his family members. The physical relationship between petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant before the marriage was mutual and as consenting adults. Only for the purpose of filing the complaint, she has chosen to make false allegations. The learned Magistrate has failed to examine these aspects before taking cognizance. Continuation of the criminal -4- CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021 proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and prays to allow the petition.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted oral objections stating that petitioner and respondent No.2/complainant became friends through social media when respondent No.2/complainant was studying engineering. Through him she came to be acquainted with his family members. She joined the People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh Group of Institutions belonging to petitioner's father as HR Assistant. Alleging that with the hidden agenda petitioner developed physical relationship with her and his family members were supporting this and ultimately she married him by registering their marriage under Special Marriage Act. Alleging that after the marriage, petitioner and his family members have started harassing and troubling her she filed the complaint. Looking to the nature of the allegations, it requires detailed trial and prays to dismiss the petition.
-5-CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021
4. Respondent No.1 is represented by learned High Court Government Pleader.
5. After due service of notice, respondent No.2/complainant has appeared through Sri T. M. Nadaf and Sri Baskar L. Patil, learned counsel.
6. At the instance of both the parties, the petition was referred to mediation. The parties have settled their dispute before the mediators and a memorandum of agreement under Section 89 of the Code of the Civil Procedure R/w Rules 24 and 25 of Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2007 and R/w Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed with the following terms and conditions.
"1. That both the parties have agreed to dissolve their marriage registered on 24.11.2017 before the Registrar of Marriage J.P. Nagar Bangalore by mutual consent.
II. In view of difference of opinion between the parties there are cases and counter cases filed -6- CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021 against each other. However, by the intervention of elders, family and friends the dispute between the parties has now been settled in the following terms:III. The cases filed the wife Respondent No. 2
against the petitioner and his parents and the institution (The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh Group of Institutions) belonging to their family are as under:
1. The Respondent No. 2 filed complaint against her husband and parents-in-law in Mahila P.S. Crime 31/2020 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 420, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 IPC. The police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the husband however dropped charges against the parents-in-law, in CC No. 350/2021 at present pending on the file of II JMFC Belagavi.
2. The Respondent No. 2 has filed M.C. No. 241/2020 for divorce under Section 27 (1) (d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 before the Family Court Belagavi on the grounds of cruelty.
3. The Respondent No. 2 has filed Cr.Misc. No. 144/2020 against the Petitioner and his parents -7- CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, before the IV JMFC Court Belagavi.
4. The Respondent No. 2 has filed Cr.Misc. No. 149/2021 against the Petitioner and his parents for violation of interim orders under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 before the IV JMFC Court Belagavi.
5. The Respondent No. 2 has filed Cr.Misc. No. 185/2020 against the Petitioner under Section 125 of Cr. PC claiming maintenance before the Family Court Belagavi.
6. The Respondent No. 2 has filed Ref. No. 01/2022 against the institute (The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh Group of Institutions) belonging to the family of Petitioner before the Labour Court Belagavi, for reinstatement into the service and consequential benefits.
IV. The cases filed by husband/petitioner and the institution (The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh Group of Institutions) belonging to their family against wife/Respondent No.2 are as under:
-8-CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021
1. The husband petitioner has filed suit in O.S. No. 93/2021 against the Respondent No.2 claiming Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) as damages and other consequential reliefs pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge Belagavi.
2. The husband petitioner has filed suit in O.S. No. 21/2021 against the Respondent No. 2 for Restitution of conjugal rights pending on the file of Principal Judge Family court, Belagavi.
3. The husband petitioner has filed Crl.P.No. 102234/2021 against the Respondent No. 2 to Quash CC 350/2021 on the file of 11 JMFC Belagavi registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 420, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 IPC.
4. The Parents of petitioner husband have filed Crl.P.No.100333/2022 before this Hon'ble Court to quash the order of violation passed in Cr.Misc.No.149/2021 by the IV JMFC., Court Belagavi.
5. The managing trustee of The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh Group of Institutions a family institution belonging to the family of petitioner filed W.P. No. 103216/2021 -9- CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021 (L-RES) challenging the initiation of Ref. No. 1/2022 filed by wife Respondent No.2.
6. The husband petitioner has filed PCR No. 104/2021 pending before the IV JMFC Belagavi against the Respondent No. 2 for Defamation.
7. The managing trustee of the The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh Group of Institutions a family institution belonging to the family of petitioner filed PCR No. 22/2022 pending before the II JMFC Belagavi against the Respondent No. 2 alleging forgery and misappropriation of funds.
V. In view of settlement of differences between the parties. The parties have settled the dispute in the following terms:
1. The petitioner husband, his parents and the institution (The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh Group of Institutions) belonging to their family have agreed to withdraw all the cases filed by them against the wife Respondent No.2. The husband petitioner and his parents have agreed to obtain a resolution and consent from the Managing Trustee of The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh
- 10 -CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021
Group of Institutions in their favour to withdraw the cases pertaining to the institution.
2. The Respondent No.2/ wife, has agreed to withdraw all the cased filed by her against the husband petitioner and his parents and institution (The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh Group of Institutions) belonging to their family except the Petition filed for Divorce.
3. Both petitioner and Respondent No. 2 have agreed to dissolve their marriage by way of mutual consent by filing an application under Section 28 before the Family Court Belagavi, in M.C. 241/2020.
4. The husband petitioner has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- (Rupees nineteen lakhs only) towards permanent alimony. The wife Respondent No. 2 has agreed to receive the same as full and final settlement and further declare that she has no claim of whatsoever nature in future against the petitioner husband, his family and institution (The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh Group of Institutions). Further declare that the petitioner husband, his family and institution (The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021Group of Institutions) have no claim of whatsoever nature in future against Respondent no.2 Wife.
Both the parties, their parents, and institution (The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh Group of Institutions) belonging to the family of the petitioner have agreed to withdraw all the allegations and counter allegations made against each other in their respective cases and objections. Both the parties their parents, and institution (The People's Education Society and Trust, Shaikh Group of Institutions) belonging to the family of the petitioner have agreed that they will not file any cases against each other in the future.
The permanent alimony of Rs.
19,00,000/- by way of DD No.508417 drawn in the name of the Respondent No.2/wife on 19.04.2023 at the time of recording of compromise.
Both the parties to the petition humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order directing the family court Belagavi in M.C.241/2020 to accept the application filed under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act and pass orders on the same
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021without waiting for six months statutory period as both the parties are living separately since May 2020.
Both the Parties have read and agreed to the above terms and Conditions."
7. Though in this petition only the petitioner who is the husband and respondent No.2/complainant, who is the wife are parties, the compromise petition is also signed by the parents of petitioner.
8. Heard arguments and perused the records.
9. At this stage, before considering the compromise entered into between the parties, it is relevant to refer to some of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding power of the High Court in permitting the parties to compromise in non- compoundable offences and the principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties.
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021
10. In the case of Narindra Singh V/s. State of Punjab1 (Narindra Singh's case), at paragraph 31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercising its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with a direction to continue with the criminal proceedings.
10.1. In Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another2, (Gian Singh's Case), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of the power of trial Court in excising the discretion under Section 320 of Cr.P.C and that of the High Court exercising inherited powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
10.2. In Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and another3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High 1 2014 AIR SCW 2065 2 (2012) 10 SCC 303 3 (2014) 9 SCC 653
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021Court can quash criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., even though the offence alleged is non- compoundable, if parties have amicably settled their disputes and victim has no objection. However, this would depend on the facts of each case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that offences which involve moral turpitude, grave offences like rape, murder cannot be effaced by quashing proceedings because they have harmful effect on Society and are not restricted to individuals or groups. Quashing of such offence may send a wrong signal to the Society. However, if the High Court is convinced that the offences are individual or personal in nature and not affecting the public peace or tranquility and quashing of proceedings on account of compromise would secure the ends of justice, it may quash the same. In such case, the prosecution becomes lame and pursuing such lame prosecution may become waste of time and energy and also unsettle compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021
11. In the light of the above decisions, it would be necessary to examine whether this is a fit case to accept the compromise between the parties.
12. From the complaint averments and the material placed on record it is evident that petitioner and respondent No.2 became friends, which developed into love affair and ultimately got married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 as they belong to different religions. It appears after 7 years of marriage, the relationship between respondent No.2/complainant, not only with her husband who is petitioner, but also with his family members became soar and they have initiated several proceedings against each other. Ultimately, they have entered into compromise and want to settle all the cases pending between them. Respondent No.2/complainant has received Rs.19,00,000/- towards full and final settlement of her claim. She has also agreed to withdraw the criminal and other proceedings initiated against petitioner and his family members. In turn petitioner and his family
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021members have undertaken to withdraw all the cases filed against respondent No.2/complainant. In the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The dispute between the parties is such that it is not affecting the public peace and tranquility. Having regard to the fact that respondent No.2/complainant has compromised with the petitioner, there is no likelihood of she supporting the prosecution, in which event the prosecution would become lame and pursuing such lame prosecution would be waste of time, energy and also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.
13. Having regard to these aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. In order to do real, complete and substantial justice between the parties, it would be appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings by exercising power under Section
- 17 -
CRL.P No. 102234 of 2021482 Cr.P.C. and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed in terms of the compromise petition.
In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21