• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12 TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE RATHNAKALA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4977/2014 BETWEEN: 1. IBRAHIM GOONADKA S/O HASSAINAR HAJI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS MEMBER OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE GOONADKA BADRIYA MASJID R/O GOONADKA HOUSE SAMPAJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 234 2. KUMBAKOD MAHAMMAD S/O KUMBAKOD MOIDU KUNHI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O GOONADKA HOUSE SAMPAJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 234 3. KHADAR KUMBAKOD S/O KUMBAKOD MOIDU KUNHI AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O GOONADKA HOUSE SAMPAJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 234 4. MUSTAFA BALNAD S/O BALNAD IBRAHIM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O DHARKASTU, GOONADKA SAMPAJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 234 - 2 - 5. SMT.HAJIRA W/O MOHAMMED KUNHI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O GOONADKA HOUSE SAMPAJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 234 6. HARIS S/O SOOFI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O DHARKASTU, GOONADKA SAMPAJE VILLAGE, SULLIA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 234 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SIDDHARTH B. MUCHANDI, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF SULLIA POLICE STATION DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 239 2. T.M.SHAHID S/O T.M.BABA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS PRESIDENT PERADKA MOYYADDIN JUMMA MASJID R/O THEKKIL HOUSE SULLIA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574 239. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHETAN DESAI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI M.R.BALAKRISHNA, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THEM IN C.C.NO.16/2014 (PCR NO.38/12) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 66 (A) (b) OF THE IT ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE C.J. AND JMFC, SULLIA, D.K. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - O R D E R The petitioners are arrayed as accused persons in the criminal case initiated at the instance of the second respondent in respect of the offence under Section 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 66(A)(b) of the I.T.Act. The stage of the case is for appearance of the accused before the Court. 2. Today petitioners and respondent No.2 along with their respective learned Counsel are present before the Court. The second respondent files an affidavit which reads thus: AFFIDAVIT “I, T.M.Shahid son of T.M.Baba, aged about 42 years, residing at Thekkil House, Sullia Taluk, D.K.District, today at Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:- 1. I submit that, I am the Respondent No.2 in the above case and conversent with the facts of the case and hence, I am swearing to this affidavit. - 4 - 2. I submit that, the above Criminal Petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the order of issue of process passed by the Hon’ble Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Sullia, in C.C. No.16/2014 arising out of the P.C.R. No.38/2012 for the offences punishable under Section 506 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. based on the complaint filed by me against them. 3. I submit that, the Petitioners and myself hail from same village and moreover we are relatives as such we have settled all our disputes amicably with the intervention of relatives, friends and well wishers. Under these circumstances, I am not inclained to proceed with the matter against them and have no objection to quash the entire proceedings pending against them before the Hon’ble Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Sullia in C.C. No.16/2014 arising out of the P.C.R. No.38/2012 filed by me under Sections 506, r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. and 66 (A) (b) of I.T. Act. 4. I submit that, I am withdrawing all the allegations made against the Petitioners in my complaint and further I undertake to keep harmonious relationship with the Petitioners in future. Hence, this affidavit. 5. I submit that in view of the amicable settlement arrived between us, keeping in mind our relationship if this Hon’ble court is not pleased to quash the entire proceedings against the Petitioners, I will suffer irreparable loss and great hardship. - 5 - I do hereby state that, this is my name and signature and what is stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information”. 3. All the petitioners have also sworn to individual affidavits undertaking that no dispute or allegation will be made by any of them in future. 4. The parties being the residents of same neighbourhood, in view of the subsequent development and having agreed to settle their disputes amicably interse with a further undertaking by the complainant to keep harmonious relationship with the petitioners, there is no impediment to quash the proceedings in accordance with the spirit of the judgment of the Apex Court in Yogendra Yadav and Others –vs- State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653. In the said case, it was held thus: “However, when the High Court is convinced that the offences are entirely personal in nature and, therefore, do not affect public peace or tranquility and where it feels - 6 - that quashing of such proceedings on account of compromise would bring about peace and would secure ends of justice, it should not hesitate to quash them. In such cases, the prosecution becomes a lame prosecution. Pursuing such a lame prosecution would be waste of time and energy. That will also unsettle the compromise and obstruct restoration of peace.” Petition is allowed. The criminal proceeding against the petitioners in C.C.No.16/2014 pending on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Sullia, Dakshina Kannada District, is quashed. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2015 also stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE KNM/- .

Load more

  6

Copy Link