- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2561 CRL.P No. 100360 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100360 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. AMINASAB MALIKSAB NADAF AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. PVT CONTRACTOR, R/O. NAGARAL, RAIBAG R.S., RAIBAG-591317. 2. SADDAM HUSEN KALANDAR PATHAN AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. RAIBAG, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, RAIBAG-591317. 3. MATIN MAHAMMADHUSEN SARAKAVAS AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. RAIBAG, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, RAIBAG-591317. 4. MAHAMMAD MAHAMMADSALIM SAYYAD AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. RAIBAG, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, RAIBAG-591317. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ANWARALI D.NADAF, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVT. PLEADER, OFFICE AT DHARWAD, HIGH COURT DHARWAD-580011. 2. SMT. REKHA VISHNU KAMBLE AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. SAI NAGAR, RAIBAG, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI, RAIBAG-591317. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.13 11:17:38 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2561 CRL.P No. 100360 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH IN ITS ENTIRETY THE REGISTRATION OF COMPLAINT AND FIR BY THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 352, 351(1), 3(5) OF BNS AND SEC. 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST ACT, PENDING BEFORE 3RD ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT BELAGAVI AND AMONGST THE OTHER GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THE GROUNDS RELIED IN THE AVERMENT MAY BE CONSIDERED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have challenged the registration of the First Information Report (“FIR”) for offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(1), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“SC/ST Act”). 2. Respondent No.2 lodged an FIR alleging that her daughter, who belongs to the Hindu Holera community, was working on a contractual basis in Jamakhandi, where she developed a relationship with petitioner No.1/accused. On 17.12.2024, both petitioner No.1 and the complainant’s daughter submitted an application before the Sub-Registrar, Chikkodi, seeking registration of their marriage. The complainant filed objections, as a result of which the marriage was not registered. It is further alleged that on 18.12.2024, petitioner No.1, enraged by the refusal to register the marriage, visited the complainant’s residence, abused her in filthy language with reference to her caste, and, along with the other accused, threatened her with dire - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2561 CRL.P No. 100360 of 2025 consequences. Subsequently, petitioner No.1 married the daughter of respondent No.2 as per Muslim personal law. 3. Despite being served with notice, respondent No.2 has neither appeared in person nor through counsel. Accordingly, she has been placed ex parte. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. 5. Petitioner No.1 had previously filed a habeas corpus petition before this Court in WPHC No.100002/2025 on 20.01.2025. It is an undisputed fact that the marriage between petitioner No.1 and the complainant’s daughter was solemnized on 19.12.2024. However, the FIR was lodged only on 24.01.2025, alleging an incident that purportedly occurred on 19.12.2024. The timing of the FIR clearly indicates that it was filed solely to obstruct the marriage between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2’s daughter, which had already taken place. 6. The Division Bench of this Court, while disposing of WPHC No.100002/2025, observed that the detenue (complainant’s daughter) was permitted to accompany petitioner No.1 and retrieve her belongings from the State Home. The Bench also granted liberty to the petitioner and the detenue to approach the Commissioner of Police, Belagavi, for protection in case of any threat. The present dispute between the parties arises solely from the complainant’s objection to her daughter’s marriage with petitioner No.1. The FIR appears to be a retaliatory measure, given - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2561 CRL.P No. 100360 of 2025 a criminal texture merely to circumvent the marriage and harass the petitioners. 7. In view of the foregoing, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the registration of the FIR in Crime No.31/2025 of Raibag Police Station is hereby quashed. 8. Any pending applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36