- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13618 CRL.P No. 4942 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4942 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT ZEENATH @ ZEENATH MOBIN WIFE OF IKBAL MOHAMED AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.6-162/3 6TH BLOCK, MATA RAOD, CHOKKABETTU, KATIPALLA VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575014. ALSO AT PORAIN APARTMENT, NO.105, 1ST FLOOR, KANAKATTA, IDYA VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575030. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAWADEGOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SURATHKAL POLICE STATION MANGALORE DISTRICT (REPRESENTED BY THE SPP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU). 2. SRI MOHAMMED KUNHI SON OF LATE HAMEED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDENT OF: MOOGU ROAD, EDNADU PUTHIGE VILLAGE Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13618 CRL.P No. 4942 of 2024 PUTHIGE KUMBLE TALUK KASARGODE, KERALA - 671 321. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEED IN C.C.NO.34/2022, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.09/2021 OF SURATHKAL POLICE STATION, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 504, 324, 323, 342, 394, 212 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner—accused No. 3—who has been charge- sheeted for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 324, 323, 342, 394, and 313 read with Section 149 of the IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that accused No. 1 came into contact with the complainant through WhatsApp and Facebook, frequently exchanged messages, and induced the complainant to come to Surat. Thereafter, accused No. 1 took the complainant to a room where accused Nos. 2 and 4 were also present. The said accused allegedly assaulted and threatened the complainant to part with a sum of Rs. 5 lakh. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards room charges. When the complainant did not pay the ransom, accused Nos. 1, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13618 CRL.P No. 4942 of 2024 2, and 4 insisted that he leave the key, after which they took the car and left the complainant near a bus stop. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 – State. 4. The allegations of ransom demand and forcible taking of the car are specifically against accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4. There are no averments in the complaint suggesting that accused No. 3 was present in the room when accused No. 1 took the complainant there. Accused No. 3 has been implicated solely on the ground that she is the wife of accused No. 4, and it is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 3 had taken pictures of the complainant, threatened to circulate them on social media, and forcibly took the car key from him. 5. However, in both the complaint and the further statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., there is no specific allegation that the petitioner threatened to circulate the complainant’s pictures on social media or that she, along with accused No. 1, forcibly took the car key. Therefore, in the absence of any substantive evidence to support the allegations against the petitioner, the continuation of criminal proceedings solely on the ground that accused No. 3 is the wife of accused No. 4 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13618 CRL.P No. 4942 of 2024 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.34/2022, pending on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, and CJM, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada, insofar it relates to the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60