- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201459 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SAIDUNNISA W/O MUKTAR PATEL D/O IBRAHIM JAMADAR, AGE:43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. MUJAAWAR GALLI, BOREGEON DESHMUKHA, TQ. AKKALKOT, DIST. SOLAPUR-413218. 2. REHANA D/O HANIF SHAIKH, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. MALAVANI MALAD, PLOT NO.7, KHOLI NO. 1241, NEAR MALAVANI POLICE STATION, MUMBAI - 400 095. 3. MUSKAN SHAIK D/O KHALIM SHAIKH, AGE:24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. MALAVANI MALAD, PLOT NO.7, KHOLI NO. 1241, NEAR MALAVANI POLICE STATION, MUMBAI - 400 095. 4. AFSANA D/O CHAND PATEL, W/O BADESHA DESAI, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PLOT NO.D14, PATHER NAGAR BUILDING, FLAT NO. B/1002, BANDRA, EAST MUMBAI-400051. 5. NAJMA W/O PHATRU PATEL, AGE:67 YEARS, OCC: DHAMMA SEVA SOCIETY, A WING 7TH FLOOR, FLAT NO.740, KURLA EAST, NEHERU NAGAR, MUMBAI-400 024. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 6. SAJIDA D/O PHATRU PATEL, AGE:36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. DHAMMA SEVA SOCIETY, A WING 7TH FLOOR, FLAT NO.740, KURLA EAST, NEHERU NAGAR, MUMBAI-400 024. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ALLAND PS, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. 2. HUMERA HEENA KOUSAR W/O MOHAMMED AHMED PATEL, AGE:26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KGN FUNCTION HALL, MAKTI ROAD, TQ. ALAND, DIST. KALABURAGI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI B.C. JAKA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.36/2024 OF ALLAND POLICE STATION AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC: 143, 147, 109, 498(A), 323, 504, 506, 149, R/W 149 OF IPC, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AT ALAND. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4 to 8 are before this Court seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Cr.No.36/2024 registered by Alland Police Station, Gulbarga pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Alland. Factual Matrix of the case: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that she married accused No.1 on 20.06.2022 as per the customs of their community. After the marriage, she was residing along with her husband. It is alleged that all the petitioners were insisting and instigating her husband to harass her on one or the other pretext to send her back to her parental house. Her husband after having heard provocation and instigating words of the petitioners, was insisting respondent No.2 to bring additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- to stay with him. As she could not fulfill the demand, she was driven out of the house. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 3. On 07.12.2022, her father-in-law died and she attended funeral ceremony. At that time, her brother-in-law and others forcibly pulled out of the house and thrown her to the street. Consequently, she sustained both mental and physical injuries. It is further stated that she has been harassed continuously by the petitioners on one or the other pretext in order to send her out from the matrimonial home. Being aggrieved by the same, she filed a complaint before the respondent police. 4. Heard Sri. Gururaj V Hasilkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Sri. B.C.Jaka, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 5. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that even on reading the entire averments of the complaint, the allegations made against the petitioners are only omnibus in nature. Assuming that respondent No.2 was assaulted on 07.02.2022, a complaint came to be registered against the petitioners after lapse of three years only in order to misuse the provision enacted under the IPC. Such frivolous and false case leveled against the petitioners ought to be deprecated and the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 petitioners have to be discharged from the case by quashing the FIR. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State vehemently opposed the said submissions and submitted that, the petitioners are the in-laws of respondent No.2. There are serious allegations made against all the petitioners. The petitioners were harassing respondent No.2 not only by threatening her but also demanding additional dowry in the form of cash. It is also stated in the complaint that she was not even provided food and shelter which was required to be given under the obligation of marriage. Therefore, the petitions has to be rejected as it is pre-mature to consider at this stage. 7. Similarly, Sri. B.C. Jaka, learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the arguments addressed by the learned High Court Government Pleader and he further submitted that the respondent No.2 has been suffering from harassment. She has been denied to provide the maintenance as per Law. Since there - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 are serious allegations made against the petitioners, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint, it is appropriate at this stage to consider the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on this subject for better reference: 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Vs. State of Madyapradesh1 held in paragraphs No. 17-20 as under: 17. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498-AIPC. It was observed that the courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases, as allegations of harassment by husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such 1 (2023) 16 SCC 666 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 18. 18. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [Neelu Chopra v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 286] , this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the “be all and end all” of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498-A IPC. 19. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. [Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488] on the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482CrPC. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines. 20. In Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , this Court had set out, by way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482CrPC could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] reads as follows : (SCC pp. 378-79) “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 10. On careful reading of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is held that when an accused comes before the High Court invoking either inherent power or extraordinary jurisdiction to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive or wreaking vengeance, then, in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. 11. Having considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking into consideration of the present case, it appears from the record that the petitioners are the in-laws of respondent No.2. She was residing along with her husband. Her allegation against these petitioners that they were instigating her husband to harass her and also they were provoking her husband to ask for dowry. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1617 CRL.P No. 201459 of 2024 12. Be that as it may, on careful reading of the averments of the complaint, except that there are some omnibus allegations made out against the petitioners, no specific overt-act has been attributed against the petitioners. 13. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that, the petitioners have made out a case to quash the proceedings. 14. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The FIR in Crime No.36/2024 registered by respondent police pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Alland are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE JS/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37 CT:PK