- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9204 CRL.P No. 4903 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4903 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MISS. SANJU J H D/O LATE HONNUR SAAB AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS ADDRESS AS PER REMAND APPLICATION NO.1707/1A, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN MOTHI LAYOUT DAVANAGERE-577002. ADDRESS AS PER AADHAR CARD NO.1056/5, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN, KURUVATHAPPA BUILDING KTJ NAGAR, DAVANAGERE JAYADEA CIRCLE DAVANAGERE-577002. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.13/32, 18TH CROSS, 21ST MAIN, 5TH PHASE JP NAGAR BANGALORE-560078. 2. MR. KHASIM SAB @ KHASIM SAB P S/O FAKRU SAB AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, NO.756/F, NEAR POLICE QUARTERS BEHIND CHURCH P J BADAVANE DAVANAGERE SOUTHERN EXTENSION DVG-KARNATAKA-577004. 3. MR. RAJA SAB @ Y N RAJASAB S/O Y. NABISAB AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 1707/1 KTJ NAGAR, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9204 CRL.P No. 4903 of 2024 17TH CROSS MOTHI DODAPPA LAYOUT OPP CHIRENJEEVI SCHOOL DAVANAGERE, SOUTHERN EXTENSION DVG DAVANGERE, KARNATAKA-577004. 4. MR. JAKEER @ JAKEER HUSSAIN M C/O MAKHTUM SAB AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 128/79, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, KHATUN A JANNATH MASJID NEAR BN-2 LAYOUT, KHATUN A JANNAT LAYOUT VTC - DAVANAGERE PO JAYADEVA CIRCLE DAVANAGERE SUB: DISTRICT DAVANAGERE STATE: KARNATAKA DAVANAGERE-577002. 5. MR. SHAFI @ SHAFIULLA S/O MAKHTUM SAB AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.117, 3RD MAIN, 11TH CROSS, VINOBA NAGAR VTC - DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT, DVG PO DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT - DVG DISTRICT: DAVANAGERE STATE KARNATAKA-577006. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DAVANAGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001. 2. SMT. BALKHIZ SABHA W/O MOHAMMED SALMAN J H AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NO.1017/1, 2ND MAIN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9204 CRL.P No. 4903 of 2024 3RD CROSS, MOTHI DODDAPPA LAYOUT DAVANAGERE KARNATAKA-577002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. SAMUEL S DANDIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.34/2024 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 323, 307, 114, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE i.e., DAVANAGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DAVANAGERE DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners, accused Nos. 3 to 7, who are facing charges under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 307, 114, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have approached this Court seeking relief from criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. The case originates from an FIR lodged by respondent No.2, the complainant, against her husband (accused No.1) and her mother-in-law. The complainant alleged that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, abused in filthy language, and assaulted. She further claimed that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9204 CRL.P No. 4903 of 2024 accused demanded that she bring money from her parental home. 3. In her further statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the complainant additionally alleged that the petitioners were present at the time of the marriage proposal between her and accused No.1 and were involved in negotiations regarding the demand for dowry. Based on this statement, the petitioners were arraigned as accused in the case. The police, after completing their investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the allegations against them are vague, omnibus, and general in nature. He contended that apart from the claim that they were present at the time of marriage negotiations and participated in dowry discussions, there are no specific allegations detailing how each petitioner allegedly subjected the complainant to mental and physical cruelty or assaulted her. 5. Furthermore, the learned counsel submitted that even if the allegations made against the petitioners are accepted at face value, they do not satisfy the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act. In support of his argument, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9204 CRL.P No. 4903 of 2024 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the charge sheet materials clearly establish that the petitioners were involved in the commission of the alleged offences. He argued that the contentions raised by the petitioners can only be examined after a full-fledged trial. At this stage, he submitted that the veracity of the allegations should not be examined, and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. After carefully considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and perusing the material on record, the following is noted: a) The FIR does not contain any allegations regarding the presence of the petitioners at the time of the marriage proposal or their involvement in negotiating dowry. b) It is only in the further statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that respondent No.2 made a vague and general allegation that the petitioners were present during the marriage proposal and dowry discussions. c) There are no specific allegations or overt acts attributed to the petitioners that indicate how they subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty, either mentally or physically, or assaulted her or engaged in demanding of dowry. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar, at paragraph 18, has observed as follows: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9204 CRL.P No. 4903 of 2024 “The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has, on numerous instances, expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increasing tendency to implicate the husband’s relatives in matrimonial disputes without assessing the long-term ramifications of a trial on both the complainant and the accused. It is further evident from these judgments that false implications through general omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would lead to a misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court has, through its judgments, cautioned against proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” 9. In light of the observations made by the Apex Court, and considering that the allegations against the petitioners are general and lack specific material evidence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The probability of conviction is remote and bleak in the absence of corroborative evidence establishing the petitioners’ direct involvement in subjecting respondent No.2 to cruelty or in demanding dowry. ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.NO.122/2025 on the file of the 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Court Davanagere District in so far it relates to petitioners- accused nos.3 to 7 is hereby quashed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9204 CRL.P No. 4903 of 2024 iii) The learned Civil Judge, to proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. The observation, if any made, is only for the purpose of the present petition. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 126