- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3762 CRL.P No. 200705 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200705 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. CHAND SAB @ CHAND PASHA S/O ABBAS ALI SHAIKH, AGE:56 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. A/102, ABIDA MANZIL KADAR PALACE ROAD, MUMBRA KAUSA THANE, MAHARASHTRA – 400612. 2. FARIDA BEE SHAIK @ JARINA W/O CHAND PASHA, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR POLICE STATION, 288/8, HAJI ABDUL SATTAR CHAWL, AMBEDKAR CHOWK, TAKIYA WARD, KURLA, MUMBAI MAHARASTRA – 400070. 3. SIRAJ SHAIKH @ SIRAJ S/O CHAND PASHA, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR POLICE STATION, 288/8, HAJI ABDUL SATTAR CHAWL, AMBEDKAR CHOWK, TAKIYA WARD, KURLA, MUMBAI MAHARASTRA – 400070. 4. ABBAS ALI SHAIKH W/O MOHEDIN AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC NIL, R/O. NEAR POLICE STATION, 288/8, HAJI ABDUL SATTAR CHAWL, AMBEDKAR CHOWK, Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3762 CRL.P No. 200705 of 2025 TAKIYA WARD, KURLA, MUMBAI MAHARASTRA - 400070 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BASAVARAJ M. POLICE PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE THORUGH KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN PS, KALABURAGI, REPRESENTED BY HCGP. 2. SANA TABASSUM W/O MEHARAJ SHEKH AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O NEAR ALI MAJID, ISLAMABAD COLONY, KALABURAGI, KALABURAGI CITY, KARNATAKA - 585104 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ABDUL RAHEMAN, ADVOCATE APPEARED FOR SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 528 OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.2 TO 5 IN CRIME NO.21/2025 REGISTERED BY KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 85, 115(2), 352, 351, 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 R/W U/S 3, 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3762 CRL.P No. 200705 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri. Basavaraj M. Police Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri. Abdul Raheman, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, with the following prayer: “Wherefore it is most humbly prayed that, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR against the petitioners arrayed as accused No.2 to 5 in Crime No.21/2025 registered by Kalaburagi city Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, pending before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi for the offences punishable u/s. 85, 115(2), 352, 351, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 r/w. u/s. 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in the interest of justice.” 3. The facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3762 CRL.P No. 200705 of 2025 3.1. Upon a complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 – Sana Tabassum, Kalaburagi Women Police Station registered a case in Crime No.21/2025 on 05.02.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3.2. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that, the respondent No.2 got married to Meharaj who is accused No.1 on 12.11.2020 in Afzal Function Hall at Kalaburagi. At the time of marriage, two tolas gold, cash of rupees one lakh and household articles were given as dowry. The coupled lived happily for sometime and a female child by name Jayasha was born in the wedlock. 3.3. Thereafter, on account of delivering a girl child there were bickerings in the matrimonial tie and physically and mentally respondent No.2 was abused. There was also a demand of additional two tolas gold and cash of rupees one lakh as dowry. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3762 CRL.P No. 200705 of 2025 3.4. Being unable to bear the torture, the respondent No.2 came back and joined the parental house. 3.5. When the matter stood thus, on 07.11.2024 all the petitioners visited Kalaburagi to the parental house of respondent No.2 and abused the complainant in filthy language and further demanded two tolas of gold and one lakh rupees cash. In the said altercation, the respondent No.2 was not only abused, but also physically assaulted. 3.6. A belated complaint came to be lodged on 05.02.2025 for the incident that has occurred on 07.11.2024. The police after registering the case are investigating the matter. 3.7. The very registration of the FIR is called in question by the petitioner by contending that, the delayed complaint exposes the hollowness and the falsity in the case of the respondent No.2 and continuation of the criminal proceedings would result in abuse of process of law and sought for quashing of the pending FIR. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3762 CRL.P No. 200705 of 2025 4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader Sri. Veeranagouda Malipatil, and Sri. Abdul Raheman, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, supports the registration of the FIR. 5. They would further contend that, the incident has occurred in the parental house of the respondent No.2 on 07.11.2024. 6. Admittedly, the petitioners who are residents of Mumbai, came to Kalaburagi only with an intention to pickup quarrel with the respondent No.2 which is to be investigated by the investigation agency in a proper manner and therefore, no grounds are made out by the petitioners to quash the pending FIR and sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard the arguments from both sides, this Court has perused the material on record, meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that, the respondent No.2 marriage with the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3762 CRL.P No. 200705 of 2025 accused No.1 is not in dispute. So also, birth of a girl child in the marriage by name Jayasha is not in dispute. 9. On account of bickerings in the matrimonial tie, respondent No.2 came back to her parental house and started living with them. There is a specific allegation that, on 07.11.2024 all the petitioners visited the parental house of the respondent No.2 for picking up the quarrel. The veracity of the allegations are to be investigated by the police and appropriate report is to be filed. 10. This Court at the stage of considering the request under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the criminal complaint cannot take the role of an Investigation Officer to find out the veracity of the allegations nor can there be any mini trial. 11. Accordingly, the grounds urged in the petition are not sufficient to quash the criminal complaint. Hence, following order: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3762 CRL.P No. 200705 of 2025 ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42 CT:PK