Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
J.M.Khazi, J.
Mohammed Sohali Bilagi - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 100526 of 2022 (482-CRPC)
Decided On : 01-09-2022
Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Ss. 143, 147, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 of IPC and Sec. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act - Narindra Singh's case, Gian Singh's Case, Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand - The court examined the scope of power under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C in accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings, considering the nature of the offences and the impact on society. The court found that the matrimonial dispute between the parties was resolved through compromise, and quashing the proceedings would secure the ends of justice as the offences were individual and personal in nature, not affecting public peace or tranquility.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of criminal proceedings for offences under various sections of IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act, citing a compromise between the parties. The court found that it was essentially a matrimonial dispute and the parties had resolved their dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of the court and that quashing the proceedings would secure the ends of justice, as the offences were individual and personal in nature, not affecting public peace or tranquility.
Issues: The main issue was whether to accept the compromise between the parties and quash the criminal proceedings, considering the nature of the offences and the impact on society.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that quashing the proceedings would secure the ends of justice as the offences were individual and personal in nature, not affecting public peace or tranquility.
Final Decision: The court allowed the compromise petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners for the specified offences.
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. 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-compounda
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the power to quash criminal proceedings under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C if the offences are individual and personal in nature, not affe....
Compromise between parties in marital disputes can result in quashing of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the need to avoid abuse of the judicial process.
The court quashed proceedings against the accused under Section 498-A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, finding no prima facie case and emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of legal processes.
Courts can quash criminal proceedings for non-compoundable offences based on compromise between parties if the offences are purely individual in nature and do not involve overriding public interest.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of law and ensure the ends of justice.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
