Mohammed Mushtaq Ahmad and Others vs State by Kengeri Police Station and Others

B. Manohar, J.—This criminal petition has been filed invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking for quashing the entire proceedings in C.C. No. 8359/2008 on the file of III ACMM, Bangalore.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B. Visweswaraiah, Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri. Ramesh S learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 2

In the petition, it was contended that marriage between 1st petitioner and 2nd respondent was solemnized on 03.2.2002. Subsequent to the consummation of their marriage, the 2nd respondent gave birth to female child on 13.4.2003. In view of the dispute arose between 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent, the marriage between them was irretrievably broken down, which leads to the filing of divorce petition. The 2nd respondent filed Criminal Petition for the offence under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the petitioner, his brother and sister, which is pending in C.C. No. 8359/2008. Apart from the criminal proceedings, the 2nd respondent also filed O.S NO.39/2014 on the file of III Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, seeking for dissolution of their marriage by decree of divorce. During the pendency of the said proceedings parties have amicably settled the dispute before the mediator as provided under Section 89 of CPC R/W Rules 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules, 2005. As per the settlement, the petitioner has to pay a sum of Rs. 1,75,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Seventy Five Thousand only) and Rs. 90,000/- (Rupees ninety thousand only) has been paid on 9.10.2014 and remaining sum of Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand only) has been paid on 6.2.2015 as a permanent alimony. Out of Rs. 1,75,000/-, Rs,85,000/- has to be deposited in the name of minor child of the 2nd respondent.

The settlement arrived at between the parties has been recorded by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore.

In view of the settlement, the 2nd respondent did not want to press CC No. 8359/2008 filed under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

Both the parties are present before this Court and they are identified by their respective counsels.

The 2nd respondent stated that in view of the amount received, she has no issues against the petitioner and marriage has been dissolved by decree of divorce. In view of the settlement of dispute, the Criminal proceedings has to be quashed. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in its judgment reported in Jitendra Raghuvanshi and Others Vs. Babita Raghuvanshi and Another, (2013) 4 AD 59 : (2013) 116 CLT 572 : (2013) 2 Crimes 90 : (2013) 2 JCC 1365 : (2013) 4 JT 98 : (2013) 2 RCR(Criminal) 427 : (2013) 3 SCALE 537 : (2013) 4 SCC 58 : (2013) AIRSCW 2349 : (2013) 2 Supreme 417 held that the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers can quash the Criminal Proceedings or FIR or complaint in appropriate cases in order to meet the ends of justice. In the present case the dispute between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is amicably settled by decree of divorce. She does not press the criminal proceedings initiated against her husband. In view of that the Criminal proceedings initiated in C.C. No. 8359/2008, pending on the file of III ACMM, Bangalore is required to be quashed. Therefore, I pass the following:

ORDER

Criminal petition is allowed. Entire proceedings in C.C. No. 8359/2008 is hereby quashed.