- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9642 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6571 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHAIK ABDUL SAMEER S/O SHAIK ABDUL JABBAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 2. SMT SHAIK SHAKIRA BEGUM W/O SHAIK ABDUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. SHAIK ABDUL JABBAR S/O SHAIK MASTHAN SAHEB AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT NO.1/786-1, DWARAKA NAGAR KADAPA TOWN KADAPA ANDRAPRADESH 516 003. 4. SHAIK ABDUL JABEER S/O SHAIK ABDUL JABBAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT NO1/786-1, DWARAKA NAGAR KADAPA TOWN, KADAPA ANDRAPRADESH-516 003. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHO, NORTH WOMEN PS, BENGALURU 560068 REP BY GOVT PLEADER Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9642 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2024 HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001. 2. SMT SHAIK RIFATH JAHAN W/O SHAIK ABDHUL SAMEER, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NO.46 6TH CROSS DINNUR MAIN ROAD, R T NAGAR BENGALURU CITY-560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K R PRASADIYAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY NORTH WOMEN P.S. (RESPONDENT NO.1) IN CR.NO.0042/2024 DATED 11.06.2024 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 498A, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, 1961 AND PRESENTLY PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE XXXII ADDL. CMM, BENGALURU. 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.1 to 4 have challenged the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. 2. The 2nd respondent lodged the FIR stating that her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1, on 24.6.2021 at Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, and at the time of marriage her parents had spent Rs.10 Lakhs only, towards marriage expenses and had also given gold ornaments weighing 250 grams to the accused. After the marriage, she resided in the house of her parents-in-law - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9642 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2024 from 24.6.2021 to 2.8.2021 and thereafter, went along with accused No.1 to the USA. During her stay at the USA, she gave birth to a male child. Accused No.1, during her stay in USA, subjected her to cruelty, both mentally and physically, and also demanded to bring money from her parental home. Unable to bear the harassment, she returned back to India on 18.12.2022, and since then she has been residing at her parental home. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant resided in the house of her in-laws for a period of two months, and the allegations made against the petitioners are omnibus and general allegations and there are no specific overt acts against each of the petitioners detailing how and in what manner they subjected her to cruelty, both mentally and physically. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the commission of the offence, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioners herein will be an abuse of the process of law. 4. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that during her stay at Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh, the petitioners who are parents-in-laws and brother-in-law subjected the defacto-complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically, and also instigated accused No.1-husband to harass the defacto complainant. Therefore, the veracity of the allegations against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 requires to be investigated and the same cannot be gone into in this petition at this stage and sought for dismissal of the petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9642 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2024 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader reiterates the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and duly considered the arguments addressed by them. 7. This Court vide order dated 15.7.2024 granted an interim order insofar as it relates to accused No.2 to 4. However, liberty was reserved with the Investigating Officer to proceed against accused No.1. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has stated to have filed the charge sheet against accused No.1 for the aforesaid offences. 8. Perusal of the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 before jurisdictional Police, and also before the Police at Kadapa indicated that the complainant stayed with the petitioners for a period of two months ie., from 24.6.2021 to 6.8.2021, and the allegation is that the mother-in-law, abused, humiliated and insulted her for her appearance and dressing, style and color. Thereafter, the complainant went to the USA along with accused No.1 and continued to lead a marital life. During her stay at USA, she gave birth to a male child and returned back to India in December 2022. It is further alleged that on 31.01.2024 when she visited the house of the parents-in-law, at that time she was abused and assaulted. The FIR was lodged two years after her return to India, and the allegation of harassment by the petitioners is of the year 2021. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9642 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2024 9. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162at para No.18 has held as follows: “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.” 10. Therefore, in the absence of any specific overt acts, much less its omnibus and general allegations made, it may be concluded that the said allegations are made only to fix the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC. 11. In view of the foregoing, I am of the considered view, in the absence of substantive evidence that the petitioners-accused subjected the complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically, and also that the petitioner had demanded of the complainant to bring money from her parental home, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9642 CRL.P No. 6571 of 2024 12. Accordingly, the petition against accused No.1 is dismissed. The petition against accused Nos. 2 to 4 is hereby allowed. 13. The impugned FIR in Crime No.42/2024 registered by the North Women Police Station, Bengaluru insofar as it relates to accused No.2 to 4 is hereby quashed. 14. Needless to say that the Trial Court is to proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, and that observations made, if any, are only for the purposes of this petition. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 110