SMT. HALEEMA BEGUM v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The Criminal Petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 109, 323, 354, 448, 498(A), 504, 506
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Though the offences alleged against the petitioners- accused are cognizable and non-compoundable, given the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, subjecting the petitioners-accused to trial would be futile. The probability of their conviction is remote and bleak in light of the…
Judgment
SMT. HALEEMA BEGUM W/O NOOR MAHAMAD AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS HOUSE HOLD, RESIDENT OF BAILMARCHAD VILLAGE MANVI, TALUK MANVI DISTRICT RAICHUR 584 203. SMT. SADIQA BEGUM W/O CHAND PASHA D/O NOOR MOHAMAD AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS OCCUPATION HOUSEHOLD, RESIDENT OF POLICE QUARTERS, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT RAMANAGARA 562 159. SRI. SYED MAHEBOOB PASHA @ MAHEBOOB KURDI S/O SYED KHASIM SAB AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 5 GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR PRANAGAMMA TEMPLE, NOOR MOHALLA, KURDI VILLAGE TALUK MANVI, DISTRICT RAICHUR 584 203. HAJI MALLNGA BABU S/O NOOR AHMED AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BAILMARCHAD VILLAGE, MANVI TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR-584 203. R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6175 CRL.P No. 200965 of 2023
NOOR MOHAMMED @ NOOR AHEMMED S/O KHASIM SAB, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O BAILMARCHAD VILLAGE, MANVI TQ: MANVI, DIST: RAICHUR-584 203. (PETITIONER NOS. 4 & 5 ARE IMPLEADED V/O DT.20.08.2024) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SINDHANUR TOWN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DISTRICT KALABURAGI 585 103.
SMT. HUSSAIN BANU W/O HAJI MALLANG BABA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCCUPATION HOUSE HOLD RESIDENT OF BAILMARCHAD VILLAGE MANVI, TALUK MANVI DISTRICT RAICHUR 584203, NOW AT VENKATESHWAR COLONY, SINDHANUR TALUK SINDHANUR DISTRICT RAICHUR 584 128. (BY SRI. F M INAMDAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ANNAVAYA M PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND FURTHER QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.3 TO 5 C.C. NO. 364/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT SINDHANUR, REGISTERED ON THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 SINDHANOOR TOWN POLICE STATION, DIST. RAICHUR IN CRIME NO. 8/2023 BASED ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6175 CRL.P No. 200965 of 2023 498(A), 504, 323, 506, 109, 354, 448, R/W 34 OF IPC, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 323, 506, 109, 354, 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Petitioner-accused No.3 is the mother-in-law; accused No.4 is the married sister-in-law; accused No.5 is the brother-in- law; accused No.1 is the husband; and accused No.2 is the father- in-law of the de facto complainant. The allegations against the petitioners-accused are they subjected the de complainant to both mental and physical cruelty, assaulted her, and outraged her modesty.
The de facto complainant instituted a suit O.S.No.23/2023 before the Prl. District and Family Court, seeking the dissolution of her marriage with accused No.1. In those proceedings, they entered into a settlement by filing a compromise petition. In terms of the settlement, their marriage was dissolved, and the de facto complainant agreed to withdraw all criminal cases against the petitioners-accused. Respondent No.2, the de facto complainant, has no objection to quashing impugned proceedings. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6175 CRL.P No. 200965 of 2023
Operative part
Though the offences alleged against the petitioners- accused are cognizable and non-compoundable, given the fact that the parties have amicably settled the dispute, subjecting the petitioners-accused to trial would be futile. The probability of their conviction is remote and bleak in light of the settlement reached between them. Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed; ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.364/2023 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, at Sindhanur, insofar it relates to the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Criminal Petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 109, 323, 354, 448, 498(A), 504, 506.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.