- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1698 CRL.P No. 101018 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101018 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAIDA BEGAM W/O. ABDUL RAFEEQ AHMED PEERZADE AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SAI NAGAR, BADAMI, BAGALKOT-587201. 2. SHRI. ABDUL RAFEEQ AHMED S/O. SAYED AMIUDDIN PEERZADE, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAI NAGAR, BADAMI, BAGALKOT-587201. 3. IMRANAHMED S/O. RAFEEQ AHMED PEERZADE, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAI NAGAR, WARD NO.5, BADAMI, BAGALKOT-587201. 4. IRFAN AHMED S/O. RAFEEQ AHMED PEERZADE, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAI NAGAR, WARD NO.5, BADAMI, BAGALKOT-587201. 5. AISHA W/O. AFTABAHMED AIRANI AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HOUSE NO.5227/1, MAIGUR ROAD, ABUBAKAR DARGA COLONY, JAMKHANDI, BAGALKOT-587301. B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.03 11:33:23 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1698 CRL.P No. 101018 of 2024 6. AFTABAHMED S/O. SAYEDALTAF AIRANI AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HOUSE NO.5227/1, MAIGUR ROAD, ABUBAKAR DARGA COLONY, JAMKHANDI, BAGALKOT-587301. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. Z.M.HATTARKI AND SMT.ARZOO M. MULLA, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI CITY, REPTD. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. SANA W/O. AJAZAHMED PEERZADE AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. CF NO.G5, ADWALPASALKAR HOMES, SHANKARWADI, TALEGAO, PANJI-GOA-403001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN WOMEN POLICE STATION BELAGAVI CITY CRIME NO.12/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 417, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF IIND JMFC BELAGAVI AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 7. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1698 CRL.P No. 101018 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners/accused Nos. 2 to 7, who are facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 417, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), have approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution’s case is that the marriage of the de facto complainant with accused No.1 was solemnized on 21.02.2021. Accused No.2 is the mother-in-law, accused No.3 is the father-in-law, accused Nos.4 and 5 are the brothers-in-law, and accused No.6 is the sister-in-law, who is married to accused No.7. It is alleged that accused No.6 and her husband (accused No.7) frequently visited the matrimonial home. The accused allegedly subjected the de facto complainant to mental and physical cruelty without any valid reason, assaulted her, and threatened her with dire consequences. 3. It is further alleged that accused Nos.2 and 3 forced the de facto complainant to leave the matrimonial home on 08.11.2021. The de facto complainant returned to the matrimonial home along with her parents and sister on 26.05.2022. At that time, all the accused allegedly assaulted, abused, and threatened her with dire consequences. Consequently, an FIR was lodged on 25.02.2024. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1698 CRL.P No. 101018 of 2024 5. The de facto complainant had filed a petition under Sections 22 and 7 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, on 14.07.2022. The FIR was lodged on 25.02.2024. A perusal of the divorce petition indicates that the dispute between the parties arises out of a marital conflict. 6. Even if the allegations are accepted at face value, they do not satisfy the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific overt acts detailing how and in what manner each accused subjected the de facto complainant to mental and physical cruelty. It is a settled principle of law that an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely based on general and omnibus allegations. Specific details are required to frame charges under Section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings solely on the basis of such vague allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 7. The petitioners/accused are also sought to be prosecuted under Section 323 of the IPC. However, the prosecution has not produced substantial evidence to establish that the de facto complainant sustained any simple injuries due to an assault by the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1698 CRL.P No. 101018 of 2024 ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed. b. The impugned proceedings in C.C No.2888/2024 pending on the file of the II JMFC, Belagavi, insofar as it relates to the petitioners – accused Nos.2 and 7 stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13