- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2568 CRL.P No. 201071 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201071 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. NISAR AHMED @ NISAR AHMED S/O MD. ISAC AHMED, AGE:75 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED PERSON, R/O. BHADRODDIN COLONY, BIDAR-585401. 2. SAJEDA BEGUM W/O NISAR AHMED, AGE:65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. BHADRODDIN COLONY, BIDAR-585401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MANVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. MADIHA SALWA W/O MOHAMMED MUBASHIR NISAR, AGE:22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O/ BHADRODDIN COLONY, BIDAR, NOW AT GOLEKHANA BIDAR-585401. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, WOMEN POLICE STATION, BIDAR, REP. BY ITS ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI-585107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R2) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2568 CRL.P No. 201071 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO, EXERCISE THE INHERENT POWERS U/S 482 OF CR.P.C EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II BIDAR IN CC NO. 2640/2023 (CRIME NO. 0015/2022 OF RESPONDENT NO.2 POLICE STATION), FOR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES U/S 498-A, 323, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.2640/2023 (Crime No.15/2022 of respondent – police) pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC – II, Bidar. Factual matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners are the in-laws of respondent No.1. She filed a complaint against the petitioners and others on 04.03.2022 stating that her marriage with accused No.1 was performed on 06.07.2017 at K.S.Garden Function Hall. Prior to marriage, the accused have demanded gold ornaments and cash. It was paid and marriage was performed. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2568 CRL.P No. 201071 of 2024 After the marriage, she started to lead her marital life in the house of her husband. Out of the said wedlock, she had begotten a male child. 3. It is further stated that her husband and in-laws were forcing her to do all the household work as a maidservant by abusing her in filthy words, assaulting her, kicking her and also demanding her to bring an additional dowry of Rs.5.00 lakhs and also a vehicle. As she could not tolerate the said harassment, she went back to her parents' house. 4. It is further alleged that, on 22.01.2022, in the evening, when she was in her house, around 4.00 p.m., her husband came to her parents' house, abused her in filthy words and instructed her that she should bring Rs.5.00 lakhs and also assaulted her in the public. Therefore, she lodged a complaint before the respondent – police. The respondent - police registered a case in Crime No.15/2022 against five accused persons and submitted the FIR to the jurisdictional Court. 5. Heard Sri.Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel for - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2568 CRL.P No. 201071 of 2024 respondent No.1 and Sri.Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned HCGP for respondent No.2. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners are in-laws of respondent No.1. Even though there are omnibus allegations made against the in-laws that they were demanding money as dowry, the fact remains that, it cannot be proved even if these petitioners are facing the trial. 7. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again expressed its displeasure about the filing of false cases against the husband and in-laws. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that, in case, if the allegations are appeared to be false or baseless, the Court has to consider leniently in such cases. 8. It is further submitted that even though respondent No.1 filed a case against the in-laws on 04.03.2022, the fact remains that, the accused No.1 had obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights on 16.12.2022. Respondent No.1 did not comply the said decree. Moreover, the accused No.1 had written a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Bidar on 19.02.2022 regarding - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2568 CRL.P No. 201071 of 2024 intimidation and threatening by his wife in relation to the filing of dowry harassment case. 9. It is further submitted that after the complaint of the accused No.1, respondent No.1 filed a case on 04.03.2022. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed and the case against the petitioners has to be quashed. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, Sri.Rajesh Doddamani, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that though the petitioners are aged about 75 and 65 years respectively, the fact remains that, they were harassing respondent No.1 in one or the other pretext and also demanding dowry in the form of cash and vehicle. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings at this stage as there are sufficient materials available on record to frame the charge. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 prays to dismiss the petition. 11. Similarly, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of the learned - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2568 CRL.P No. 201071 of 2024 counsel for respondent No.1 and he prays to dismiss the petition. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it appears from the record that after marriage, she was residing with her husband and her in-laws in her matrimonial home. All these persons stated to have harassed her in one or the other pretext and also demanding the dowry in the form of cash and vehicle. 13. Be that as it may, all the allegations made against the petitioners are omnibus in nature. No specific overt-act was attributed against these petitioners. It is also taken note of the fact that accused No.1 had filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police at Bidar prior to filing of the case against the petitioners and another. It is also noted that accused No.1 had obtained a decree of restitution of conjugal rights and the same has not been complied. Even though she left the house on 16.12.2021, a complaint came to be registered on 04.03.2022 against the petitioners and another. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2568 CRL.P No. 201071 of 2024 14. Having considered the documents made available on record, it appears that respondent No.2 has not made out a case to proceed against the petitioners. On reading the entire averments of the complaint, I am of the considered opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. 15. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The FIR in Crime No.15/2022 registered by the respondent No.2 - police and further proceedings in C.C No.2640/2023 pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC – II, Bidar are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 CT:PK