- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1484 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201583 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MAIBOOB PASHA S/O BABU MIYA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, 2. SHARIPA BEGUM @ SHARIFA BI W/O BABU MIYA, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 3. SHAHIDA BEGUM W/O KHAYUM SAB, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 4. YASIN BEGUM @ YASHMIN PATEL W/O RAJA PATEL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ALL ARE R/O RAVOOR WADI, TQ: CHITTAPUR, DIST: KALABURAGI-585225. 5. ABASALLI @ ABBAS S/O AMEENUDDIN @ AMINSAB, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O MADANPUR OLD BUS STAND, BACKSIDE, YADGIRI, TQ: AND DIST: YADGIRI-585202. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1484 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH, HUTTI POLICE STATION, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. 2. JULEKHA BEGUM W/O MAIBOOB PASHA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O HUTTI VILLAGE, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR-584101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHARANAGOUDA V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C./SECTION 528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.135/2024, OF HUTTI POLICE STATION, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1484 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) This petition is filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by filing of the FIR in Crime No.135/2024 for the offences under Sections 498A, 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The respondent No.2 filed a criminal case before the jurisdictional police stating that she married one Maiboob Pasha on 22.09.2017. Thereafter, she started residing along with him in her matrimonial home. During her stay in the said house, her husband used to harass and ill-treat her for want of additional dowry. Being aggrieved by the said harassment, she had lodged a complaint against her husband. The said complaint was withdrawn by the intervention of the elders and well-wishers. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1484 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2024 3. Again, she started residing with her husband in her matrimonial house. Thereafter, they both led a happy married life for about 4-5 years. It is further stated that she had not begotten a child even after the lapse of several years from the date of her marriage. Hence, petitioner No.1 again started harassing her, consequently she had to leave her matrimonial home. As per the averments of the complaint, she was residing in her parents house. 4. Such being the fact, on 07.06.2024 the petitioners stated to have gone to her house and asked her to give divorce for the purpose of performing the marriage of her husband with another woman for the purpose of procuring the child. As she did not give the consent, she stated to have been assaulted and threatened with dire consequences. Hence, she lodged a complaint on 23.06.2024. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1484 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2024 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that this is the second complaint which she had filed against all the petitioners on the same cause of action. The earlier complaint was ended in settlement between the parties. However, again after the lapse of several years, she filed a similar complaint only in order to harass the husband and his family members which are baseless and bald allegations. 7. It is further submitted that though the alleged incident stated to have taken place on 07.06.2024, she lodged a complaint on 23.06.2024. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Moreover, there are omnibus allegations made out against the petitioners and no specific overt acts were attributed. Such being the case, even allowing the petitioners to face trial, it would not serve the purpose. Therefore, the petition has to be allowed and the case against the petitioners has to be quashed. Making such submissions, he prays to allow the petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1484 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2024 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent No.1 vehemently opposed the said submissions and he further submitted that the allegations are serious in nature. The earlier complaint lodged against the husband of respondent No.2 would indicate that the husband and in-laws were harassing the respondent No.2 in one or the other pretext and also she was not allowed to stay in her matrimonial house peacefully. 9. It is further submitted that when the complaint averments clearly would indicate that the petitioners had been to the house of the respondent No.2 and committed offences as stated supra, quashing the proceedings denying such allegations is not proper and therefore the petition has to be rejected. 10. Similarly the learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of the Learned High Court Government Pleader and prays to dismiss the petition. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1484 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2024 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, before adverting to the merit of the case, it is appropriate to refer the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court for the purpose of clarity in respect of the offence under Section 498A of IPC. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Digambar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3836, at paragraph No.33 held as under: “33. It would again, be apposite to refer to the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana (supra) wherein this Court has discussed the objective of Section 498-A of IPC and has also raised its concerns over the misuse of this Section in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed thus: “28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1484 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2024 accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them. 29. We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding. That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1484 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2024 of the IPC is lodged by the latter. In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.” 13. On reading of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it can be inferred that the object of Section 498A of IPC, rather than it being used properly, it is being misused. 14. In the present case, it appears from the record that the alleged incident of assault said to have taken place on 07.06.2024, however, she lodged a complaint against the petitioners on 23.06.2024. The delay in lodging the complaint would defeat the case of the prosecution. 15. In addition to the delay in lodging the complaint, the averments of the complaint would indicate that all the petitioners have assaulted her, abused her and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1484 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2024 also threatened her with dire consequences. However, no specific overt act has been attributed against each individual. Therefore, it appears that she made baseless and bald allegations which are omnibus in nature. Therefore, allowing the petitioners to face the trial would certainly be an abuse of process of law. Hence, it is appropriate to quash the proceedings in respect of petitioner Nos.2 to 5. It is needless to say that the allegations in the complaint are attracted against the accused No.1, who is the husband of the respondent No.2. 16. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The entire proceedings in Crime No.135/2024, of Hutti Police Station, Tq. Lingsugur, Dist. Raichur for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 143, 147, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1484 CRL.P No. 201583 of 2024 file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Lingasugur in respect of petitioner Nos.2 to 5 is quashed. (iii) As regards petitioner No.1 is concerned, liberty is reserved to the jurisdictional police to proceed against him in accordance with law. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT:PK