Karnataka High Court
Shoaib Ahmed vs State Of Karnataka By on 23 November, 2016
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5548 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. Shoaib Ahmed,
Son of Rafeeq Ahamed,
Aged about 27 years,
2. Rafeeq Ahmed,
Son of Late Abdul Salam,
Aged about 68 years,
3. Mudassir Ahmed,
Son of Rafeeq Ahmed,
Aged about 30 years,
4. Ayesha Tabassum,
Daughter of Rafeeq Ahmed,
Aged about 34 years,
All are resident of No.77,
3rd Cross, Bannimantapa Layout,
Mysur City,
Mysur - 570 015.
...PETITIONERS
2
(By Shri N. Srinivas, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka by
Kumaraswamy Layout
Police Station,
Bangalore - 560078.
2. Sheema Noorain,
Wife of Shoaib Ahmed,
Daughter of Abdul Jameel,
Residing at No.328,
6th Cross, J.H.B.C.S.Layout,
Banglaore - 560 078.
And also at:
No.140, 4th Cross,
J.H.B.C.S.Layout,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bangalore - 560 078.
3. Abdul Jameel,
Son of Basha Sab,
Aged about 56 years,
Resident of No. 328,
6th Cross, J.H.B.C.S.Layout,
B.S.K.II Stage,
Bangalore - 560 078.
[respondent no.3 impleaded
Vide court order dated 23.11.2016]
...RESPONDENTS
3
(By Shri S. Vishwamurthy, Government Pleader for
Respondent No.1;
Shri R.V.Shivanand Reddy, Advocate for Respondent no.3)
*****
This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the entire
proceedings in C.C.No.3773/2016 pending on the file of the
44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for
offences punishable under Section 498A read with 34 of IPC
and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P.Act be quashed.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Shri R.V.Shivanand Reddy enters appearance for the second respondent and files an application on behalf of the second respondent.
2. The applicant is said to be the father of respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 was the complainant and petitioner no.1 was her husband. The marriage however had failed and had broken down. There were multiple proceedings. In that, respondent no.2 had instituted criminal proceedings alleging an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of 4 the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. She had also instituted proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'DV Act', for brevity) against the first petitioner and his family members. The proceedings under the DV Act having been referred to Lok Adalat, there was a settlement whereby "Khulanama' dated 8.8.2015 and a settlement agreement were produced and in terms of the settlement, it was also agreed that the criminal proceedings could be dropped. It transpires that the second respondent has also returned the valuables that were claimed by the petitioner no.1 and his family members in terms of the settlement.
3. However, it was found that since the offences alleged under the provisions of the IPC and the DV Act were non- compoundable, it was not possible for the criminal proceedings 5 to be dropped or compounded. Consequently, the present petition is filed.
4. It now transpires that the second respondent has gone abroad for higher studies and is not readily available in the country and it is for that reason that the father of the second respondent entered appearance through counsel and has filed the present application to implead himself as a party.
The counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead Shri Abdul Jameel as a party - respondent to these proceedings.
5. In the light of the above circumstances and in the light of the decision of the apex court in Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012)10 SCC 303, the criminal proceedings pending in CC No.3773/2016 before the XLIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed. Insofar as the proceedings under the DV Act in C.Mis.130/2015 has already been settled before the Lok Adalath in terms of a Joint Memo.
6
The petition is allowed in terms as above.
Sd/-
JUDGE nv