1. Petitioners herein are arrayed as accused persons in the FIR registered by the Ashok Nagar Police Station in respect of the offences punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on the complaint of the respondent 2-Smt. Nida Hussaini.
2. As per the submission at the Bar, though FIR was registered as against all the f
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ve petitioners, charge-sheet is filed in C.C. No. 52082 of 2015 against the 1st petitioner only, the case is pending consideration on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore. In that view of the matter, the petition as against accused 2 to 5 has become infructuous. The 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent are present before the Court.3. Sri Yaseen Babu has filed vakalath for the 2nd respondent. An Affidavit sworn by the 2nd respondent is filed, which reads thus:"I, Smt. Nida Hussaini, daughter of Sri Minuddeen Hussaini, aged about 27 years, residing at No. 301, 3rd Floor, Green House Apartment, Kemp Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore-560 005 do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:1. I state that, I am the respondent 2 in the above case and I am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence I am competent to swear this affidavit.2. I state that, I have filed a police complaint for dowry harassment against the petitioners on the basis of which a case in Crime No. 58 of 2014 was registered before the Bharathi Nagar Police Station, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Section 498-A of IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The above case was later transferred to Ashok Nagar Police Station and on transfer the case was registered in Crime No. 172 of 2014. Based on my complaint, the complainant police have filed a charge-sheet in CC No. 52082 of 2015 against first petitioner.3. I state that during the pendency of the above criminal petition, I took divorce by mutual consent from the first petitioner on 28-3-2015 which was recorded in the form of Declaration of Khula Nama and acceptance of Khula and thereby the marriage stands dissolved.4. I state that my Ex sister-in-law Smt. Gazalla Hajeera, daughter of Shaik .Ahmed has also filed a criminal case against me and my sister Smt. Shabreen Hussaini and her husband Sri Tanzeem Khan on the basis of which a case in Crime No. 278 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 506, 504, 509 read with Section 34 of IPC is registered before the Pulakeshinagar Police Station, Bangalore. The complainant Police filed a charge-sheet against us in C.C. No. 53140 of 2015. I, my sister Smt. Shabreen Hussaini and Sri Tanzeem Khan have approached this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the proceedings pending on the file of 11th Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 6891 of 2015.5. My Ex-Husband Mr. Yunus Ahmed and others have also approached this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the proceedings pending on the file of 11th Additional Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 817 of 2015.6. I state that and my Ex-Husband Sri Yunus Ahmed and our respective family members have amicably resolved our disputes and differences and have arrived at a settlement.7. That in view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at between us, consent this Hon'ble Court to quash the criminal proceedings pending on the file of 11th Additional Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore in C.C. No. 52082 of 2015 and also quash the criminal proceedings pending against me, my sister and her husband in C.C. No. 53140 of 2015 by allowing the Criminal Petition No. 6891 of 2015."4. In view of the subsequent development as brought forth in the Affidavit and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court inGian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, (2012) 10 SCC 303, there is no impediment to quash the proceedings against the 1st petitioner.5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR and consequential charge-sheet filed by the respondent so far the 1st petitioner is concerned is quashed. The petition as against petitioners 2 to 5 are concerned are having become infructous.
"2017 (4) KantLJ 174,"