Karnataka High Court
Imran Khan @ Rajesh vs State Of Karnataka on 1 April, 2014
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1273/2014
BETWEEN :
1. IMRAN KHAN @ RAJESH,
S/O IBRAHIM SIKANDAR KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS.
2. SMT.KAISER BEGUM,
W/O IBRAHIM SIKANDAR KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
3. IRFAN KHAN,
S/O IBRAHIM SIKANDAR KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 26 YERS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.C1/2, B.D.A. FLAT,
KALALLI, NEAR ULSOOR,
BENGALURU 560 042 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.C.R.ABDUL RASHEED, ADV.,)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SHO K.G.HALLI P.S.,
BENGALURU 560 045.
2. SMT.BHAVANI SONY @
TAHSEEN,
W/O IMRAN KHAN @ RAJESH,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
NO.1709, 4TH CROSS,
NEAR U SURGICAL FACTORY,
-2-
B.M.LAYOUT, VENKATESHPURA,
BANGALORE 560 045. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.T.G.SURESH, ADV FOR R2,
SRI.B.J.ESWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SEC.482 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.14/2006 OF
K.G.HALLHI P.S., BANGALORE FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A)
506 (B) OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND ALL
PROCEEDING IN CC.NO.24312/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE XI
ADDL.CMM., BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Accused 1, 2 and 4 in CC.No.24312/2008 pending on the file of XI ACMM, Bangalore, have come up in this petition seeking quashing of aforesaid criminal proceeding, which is initiated for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 506(B) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Admittedly, the criminal proceeding in CC.No.24312/2008 is pursuant to a complaint filed by second respondent herein in Crime No.14/2006. Initially a complaint was filed against six persons. Subsequently, after the investigation, charge sheet was filed against four persons, who are referred to as Accused 1 to 4 and are said to be husband, -3- mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law of complainant, respectively. It is stated that subsequent to charge sheet being filed, accused No.3-Sri.Ibrahim Sikandar Khan is said to have died. Therefore, the remaining accused in CC.No.24312/2008 have come up in this criminal petition seeking quashing of said criminal proceeding.
3. It is stated that complainant, second respondent herein had filed a petition under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in MC.No.3565/2012 seeking decree of divorce between herself and first petitioner herein. It is further stated that said proceeding came to be dismissed holding that petition is not maintainable as there is no valid marriage between first petitioner and second respondent herein under the Act. Subsequently, it is stated that there was out of Court settlement between the parties, which is reduced in to writing in the form of affidavit and filed in to the Court this day. The petitioners herein, who are accused 1, 2 and 4 in aforesaid criminal proceeding are present before the Court. So also the complainant, second respondent herein. Both the parties would together submit that dispute between them is amicably settled and the second respondent complainant is not -4- pressing the complaint. Today the complainant is represented by her counsel Sri.T.G.Sathish, who is said to have filed vakalath in to the Court this day. The parties together admit that dispute between them is settled and that there is no coercion on the part of accused-petitioners against complainant-second respondent to file the affidavit, which is accepted by second respondent also. They together submit that the petition which is filed by accused 1, 2 and 4 may be allowed and the proceeding in CC.No.24312/2008 pending on the file of XI ACMM, Bangalore, may be quashed.
4. In the instant case, though the settlement is arrived at between the parties, since offence alleged being non compoundable in nature, the settlement cannot be accepted and criminal proceeding cannot be quashed in normal circumstance. However, considering the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the matter of Gian Singh -vs- State of Punjab and Another, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, wherein it is held that when the settlement is arrived at between the parties with reference to an offence punishable arising between the parties with reference to matrimonial dispute, though said offences are not compoundable, the High Court in exercise of its inherent -5- powers under Section 482 of Cr.PC, can quash the same. In view of the aforesaid judgment of Apex Court considering the fact that the dispute between the parties is amicably settled and also taking in to consideration that there is already a declaration that the marriage between first petitioner and second respondent herein not being valid marriage in the eye of law, question of directing the parties to undergo the trial in aforesaid criminal proceeding would not be in their interest.
5. Accordingly, taking the affidavit filed by second respondent-complainant on record and since the dispute between the parties being settled in terms referred to therein, this criminal petition is allowed, consequently proceeding pending in CC.No.28312/2008 on the file of XI ACMM, Bangalore for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 506(B) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nd/-