- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103487 OF 2024 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. JAHIR MUNIR JAMADAR, S/O. MUNIR JAMADAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O. NEAR MARKAJ MASJID, HERLE, TQ. HATKANANGALE, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA, PIN-416109. 2. MAHERNIGA MUNIR JAMADAR, W/O. MUNIR JAMADAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR MARKAJ MASJID, HERLE, TQ. HATKANANGALE, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA, PIN-416109. 3. MUNIR BANDHU JAMADAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O. NEAR MARKAJ MASJID, HERLE, TQ. HATKANANGALE, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA, PIN-416109. 4. MUBINA MOHSIN SAYYED, W/O. MOHSIN, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. PLOT NO.7, SAI PAYMAL VASAHAT, NCC BHAVAN, JAVAL JAGRUTI NAGAR, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-416004. 5. HASEENA MOHAMMADRAFIQ MULLANI, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. A. K. COMPLEX, 689, E-WARD, SHAHUPURI, 2ND LANE, KARVIR, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-PIN: 416001. 6. FASIHA SHADAB PACHAPURE, W/O. SHADAB AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. MUJAWAR GALLI, BELAGAVI , KARNATAKA, PIN: 590001. Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 7. SHADAB ABDULKARIM PACHAPURE, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED, R/O. MUJAWAR GALLI, BELAGAVI , KARNATAKA, PIN: 590001. 8. ASIF AFZAL PATEL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AT: PT. ALAS, TQ. SHIROL, DT. KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-PIN: 416103. 9. ARIF AFAL PATEL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. AT: PT. ALAS, TQ. SHIROL, DT. KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA-PIN: 416103. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. KAVITA K. RATHOD, ADV. FOR SHRI RAKESH M. BILKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WOMEN P.S. BELAGAVI CITY, NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. 2. SIMRAN JAHIR JAMADAR, W/O. JAHIR, AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, NEAR MARKAZ MASJID, HERLE, TQ. HATKANANGALE, KOLHAPUR, NOW AT R/O. R/O.5TH, VEERABHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI CITY, KARNATAKA, PINCODE-590016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1: NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR, CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/A1 TO A9 PENDING BEFORE THE JMFC II COURT, BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO.2242/2024 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.14/2024 OF BELAGAVI CITY WOMEN P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W. 34 OF IPC, 1860 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Though notice to respondent No.2-complainant is served, she remained absent. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their status before the trial Court. Petitioners herein are accused Nos.1 to 9 and respondent No.2 is the de-facto complainant. 3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as under: The marriage of petitioner No.1 and the de-facto complainant was solemnized on 20.03.2022 at Pune. The relationship of petitioner No.1 with the de-facto complainant was cordial for a couple of months. Thereafter, all the petitioners started to harass the de-facto complainant in connection with demand of dowry and they were insulted the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 de-facto complainant without providing proper food and they evicted her from matrimonial house. 4. On 19.06.2023, the de-facto complainant came to the house of petitioners for participating in the funeral ceremony of younger brother of her husband. On 21.06.2023, all the accused persons took quarrel with her, voluntarily caused hurt to the de-facto complainant, her father and brother, pulled them, intentionally insulted to provoke their breach of peace, accused No.4 poured hot water on the legs of the de-facto complainant and they made criminal intimidation to eliminate her. Therefore she lodged a complaint on 17.03.2024. On the basis of the complaint, respondent police, registered the case and took up the investigation and after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet in C.C.No.2242/2024 before the Trial Court. 5. Being aggrieved by initiation of proceedings in C.C.No.2242/2024, these petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 9 have filed this petition praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated against them. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 6. It is contended that, petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences, they have been falsely implicated in the crime and the allegations made in the complaint are vague and omnibus in nature, in view of there being no specific allegations against the accused persons. The incident occurred on 21.06.2023. However, the de-facto complainant lodged her complaint on 17.03.2024. Hence, there is a delay of 9 months in lodging the complaint. In fact, these petitioners are not involved in the alleged offences. Hence, she prayed to quash the proceedings. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader contended that, petitioners are involved in the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and there are prima facie materials against these petitioners, therefore, at this stage the proceedings cannot be quashed. 8. I have perusal of material available on record. It appears that, the learned Magistrate on perusal of charge - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 sheet materials took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. 9. As per charge-sheet material, the de-facto complainant made allegations that, these petitioners were harassing her in connection with demand of dowry and they were abused her. Therefore, she evicted from the matrimonial house in the year 2022 itself. 10. Admittedly, the first information was lodged after 9 months from the date, on which, the complainant was thrown out from the matrimonial house. Except general and omnibus allegations, there is no specific allegation made against these petitioners, as to how and in what manner they subjected complainant to cruelty both physically and mentally and also demanded to bring dowry from her parental house. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao1 at paragraph No.30, has held as follows: 1 (2008) 15 SCC 582 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 "Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained." 12. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State Of Bihar2 at Paragraph 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 2 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 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." 13. In the absence of any material that accused Nos.1 to 9 have subjected the complainant to cruelty both physically and mentally and also that there was demanding to bring dowry from her parental home, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate insofar as Section 498(A) is not tenable. 14. Further, the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are also not established. In fact, the prosecution has to show that accused persons have intentionally insulted the de-facto complainant, so as to give her provocation, intending or knowing that such provocation will cause her break the public peace or to commit any other offences. Thus, mere act of insulting a person would not satisfy the ingredients of Section 504 of IPC. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Another,3 at Paragraph Nos.13 and 14, has held as under: "13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients, viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC. 14. We may also indicate that it is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an intentional insult so as 3 AIR (2014) SC 2013 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a complainant should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC." 16. So far as Section 506 of IPC is concerned, in order to satisfy the ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation, there has to be threat of injury to a person, reputation or property of the complainant by the accused, which should be the intention to cause harm to that person or to cause that person to do any act, which is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat. In the case of Manik Taneja & Another Vs. State Of Karnataka & Another4 the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to examine the ingredients of Section 506 of 4 (2015) Part 7 SCC 423 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 IPC, wherein the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court is as under: "The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.” 17. So far as the Section 323 of IPC is concerned, though the complainant has made out the allegations against the petitioners, neither the complainant nor the Investigating Officer has furnished Wound Certificate to show that these petitioners have voluntarily caused bodily injury to the complainant. 18. In the instant case as discussed herein above and material on record coupled with the allegation made in the complaint, the complainant does not establish the offences - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8876 CRL.P No. 103487 of 2024 under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 and 323 of IPC against these petitioners. 19. In view of the above analysis, the continuation of criminal proceedings against these petitioners i.e., accused Nos.1 to 9, will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.2242/2024 (Arising out of Crime No.0014/2024 of Belagavi City Women Police Station) pending on the file of the learned JMFC-II Court, Belagavi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC, insofar as it relates to the petitioners (Accused Nos.1 to 9) are concerned, are hereby quashed. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration, accordingly stand disposed of. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE EM /CT-AN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20