Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1123 (KAR)

Mohammed Sohali Bilagi v. State of Karnataka

2022-09-01

J.M.KHAZI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 11 by invoking the provisions of Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short " Cr.P.C ") are seeking quashing of entire proceedings in C.C. No.726/2021, pending on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunagund for the offence punishable under Ss. 143 , 147 , 323 , 498-A , 504 , 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, (for short "D.P. Act"). 2. Petitioners have contended that respondent No.2 filed a complaint alleging that earlier she married to one Bandenawaz Shivanagutti and after taking Khulanama from him on 18/2/2021, she married petitioner No.1 Mohammad Sohel Bilagi and after one month of the marriage all the petitioners started harassing and ill- treating her demanding dowry of Rupees Two lakhs. She filed complaint on 8/6/2021 alleging that on 4/6/2021 at 7:00 pm the petitioners abused and assaulted her demanding to get her signature to blank bond paper so as to convert the same into Khulanama. 3. Petitioners have denied that respondent No.2 was married to petitioner No.1. The documents filed by the Police are no way concerned with the petitioners. They are innocent and have nothing to do with respondent No.2. In fact petitioner No.1 has issued legal notice dtd. 19/4/2021 and also sent a copy to the concerned Police. After issue of legal notice, on 5/6/2021, petitioner No.1 has filed a private complaint in PCR No.158/2021 against respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Ss. 384 , 500 and 295-A r/w Sec. 34 of IPC. 4. Petitioners have further contended that petitioner No.1 is a teacher in Government School. Petitioner No.5 is the wife of petitioner No.4. She is studying B.Ed., at Lingasuru, Raichur. She has delivered a child on 14/6/2021. Petitioner No.7 is studying in B.Sc. Only to harass the petitioners, a false complaint has been filed arraigning all of them. In spite of there being no evidence a charge sheet came to be filed against all the petitioners and have sought for quashing the proceedings. 5. During the pendency of the proceedings, parties have entered into compromise. Respondent No.2 who is complainant has filed application under Sec. 320(2) r/w Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., supported by her affidavit. A joint memo is also field by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and have sought for allowing the petition and to quash the proceedings. 6. 5. During the pendency of the proceedings, parties have entered into compromise. Respondent No.2 who is complainant has filed application under Sec. 320(2) r/w Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., supported by her affidavit. A joint memo is also field by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and have sought for allowing the petition and to quash the proceedings. 6. Both the parties are present before the Court and they admitted the compromise and filing of an application under sec. 320(2) read with Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. as well as joint memo by petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. 7. It is relevant to note that a charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.726/2021 against the petitioners for the offence punishable under sec. 498-A , 504 , 143 , 147 , 323 r/w sec. 149 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act, of which sec. 498-A of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act are non-compoundable. 8. In this regard, the parties have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narindra Singh V/s. State of Punjab,2014 AIR SCW 2065. (Narindra Singh's case) wherein 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 Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with the criminal proceedings. 9. In Gian Singh V/s. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 10 SCC 303 . (Gian Singh's Case) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the scope of the power of trial Court in excising the discretion under Sec. 320 of Cr.P.C and that of the High court excising inherited powers under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. In Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2014) 9 SCC 653 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under Sec. 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. 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. However, this would depend on the facts of each case. 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 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 unsettled compromise and obstruct restoration of peace. 10. 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. From perusal of the material placed on record it becomes evident that essentially it is a matrimonial dispute between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and in order to settled scores with petitioner No.3, respondent No.2 has roped in the remaining petitioners. The parties have resolved their dispute. Since it is a matrimonial relationship between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and having regard to the said fact, in order to continue her matrimonial relationship, it would be appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings against the remaining petitioners and also having regard to the fact that they are the close relatives, essentially the criminal prosecution in question is between the parties inter se and it is not an offence against the society in strict terms and quashing the proceedings is not going to have any harmful effect on the society. Since the offences are individual and personal in nature and it is not invading public peace or tranquility, the quashing of the proceedings on account of compromise is going to secure the ends of justice. Continuation of dispute between the parties even after they have compromised would become lame and pursuing such a lame prosecution may become waste of time and energy and also unsettle the compromise and obstruct the restoration of peace. Having regard to these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court. Having regard to these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of 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 the powers under sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The compromise petition filed under Sec. 320(2) R/w. 482 of Cr.P.C ., is allowed. The permission is granted to the parties to compound and in the result, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Ss. 498-A , 504 , 143 , 147 , 323 , r/w sec. 149 of IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the D. P. Act, in C.C. No.726/2021 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hungund, is hereby quashed. In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly.