- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5789 CRL.P No. 103502 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103502 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. AYYUB S/O. SANNAHUSENSAB NADDIMULLA, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. #429/24, IRANI COLONY, GADAG-582101. 2. SMT. MAMATAZ BEGUM W/O. SANNAHUSENSAB NADDIMULLA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. #429/24, IRANI COLONY, GADAG-582101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE WOMEN POLICE STATION, GADAG, R/BY. THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. 2. SMT. NOUREEN BANU MAKANDAR D/O. SAYYAD RASHID, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. H. NO.393/B, TAJ NAGAR, GADAG-582101, NOW R/AT H. NO.397, OPP. VALMIKI BHAVAN, GADAG-582101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SAJID GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 1325/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-I GADAG REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 498A, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2. MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Date: 2025.04.08 11:09:48 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5789 CRL.P No. 103502 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri. Chethan Munnoli, counsel for petitioner and Smt.Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Sajid Goodwala, learned counsel for second respondent. 2. Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: “To quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No. 1325/2023 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC-I Gadag registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 vide Annexure-A in respect of petitioner/ accused No.1 and 2 in the interest of justice” 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5789 CRL.P No. 103502 of 2023 3.1 A complaint came to be lodged with Woman Police Station, Gadag by the second respondent herein stating that she had been married to the petitioner on 20.01.2021 in Noorani Jamaat, Makkana Galli. After the marriage, she joined the matrimonial home. For a brief period, she was looked after well in the matrimonial home. On 07.02.2021, at about 10 a.m., petitioners and others have picked up the quarrel with the complainant stating that she does not know how to cook the food and not able to attend day-to-day household activities in the matrimonial home and abused her in filthy language and physically assaulted her. Somehow she tolerated the same with an intention to survive the marital relationship. 3.2 On 01.06.2021 at about 8 a.m. all the accused persons picked up the quarrel with the complainant with a demand of Rs.5,00,000/- as dowry and abused and assaulted her. Having sustained injuries, she took treatment with Dr.Sonia Varur, Mulagund road, Gadag. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5789 CRL.P No. 103502 of 2023 3.3 Again on 22.10.2021 at about 10 p.m. there was an altercation, wherein the petitioners and others have again abused and assaulted her and sent her out of matrimonial home. Left with no alternative she returned to parental home and took shelter there. Panchayath was convened and the petitioners and others were advised to look after her properly. Despite the same, she was not taken to matrimonial home and she was told that unless she brings dowry amount of Rs.5,00,000/-, she should not return to the matrimonial home. 3.4 Based on such complaint, Gadag Police registered the case in Crime N0.3/2022 for the offences punishable under Section 498A , 323 504, 506 and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3.5 Charge sheet came to be filed after thorough investigation. Cognizance of the offences was taken by the jurisdictional magistrate. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5789 CRL.P No. 103502 of 2023 3.6 Challenging the order of taking cognizance of the offences, petitioners are before this Court on the following grounds: “1. The very reading of the complaint shows that it is a false, concocted and unnatural and has been given only with malafide intention to lend colour of a criminal offence just to subject the Petitioners to harassment and humiliation. The complaint does not speak of any criminal offences punishable U/Sec. 323, 498A, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 2. It is submitted that, on perusal of the complaint, last alleged incident took place on 22.10.2021 but the Complaint has been lodged on 02.03.2022. There is a delay of 4 month 11 days in lodging the complaint. The said delay has not been explained in the Complaint. 3. Further it is alleged that, Complainant was assaulted by all the accused who are three in number. In that event it is very obvious that she would have been atleast sustained minor injuries. In the absence of injury certificate itself reveals that no such incident has occurred on the alleged date. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5789 CRL.P No. 103502 of 2023 4. It is submitted that; Petitioner No. 1 & Respondent No. 2 are well educated persons and are aspirants of becoming a Civil Servant. As such both after marriage started residing together at No.6/3, Ground Floor, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi- 110 060 Rau's IAS Study Circle for taking coaching for Civil Servant Examination. Hence, question of meeting out of harassment by all the Petitioners at Gadag does not arise. True Copy of the Rent Agreement dated 17.02.2021 is produced as per Annexure - G. 5. It is relevant to submit that, as per the Complaint averments on 07.02.2021 at about 10.00 PM all the Petitioners quarreled with the Complainant that she does not know to cook food and does not know to work, abused her in filthy language and physically assaulted her. On the contrary, the Petitioner No. 1 & Complainant as on that date were at New Delhi. On 30.01.2021, the Petitioner No. 1 & Complainant went to New Delhi from Hubli by IndiGo Airlines and they returned back from New Delhi on 14.03.2021 by IndiGo Airlines. This aspect falsifies the contention of the Complainant. 6. It is further submitted that, from 22.10.2021 to 24.10.2021 the Petitioner No. 1 & 2 were in Bengaluru to attend function of relatives. Hence, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5789 CRL.P No. 103502 of 2023 question of Petitioners harassing the Complainant does not arise. 7. The Respondent No. 1 Police have failed to conduct the preliminary enquiry so as to ascertain the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgment has laid down guidelines in so far as matrimonial disputes only with the intention to protect the innocent family members. 8. As per the Complaint averments on 07.02.2021 at about 10.00 PM all the Petitioners quarreled with the Complainant that she does not know to cook food and does not know to work, abused her in filthy language and physically assaulted her. On the contrary, the Petitioner No. 1 & Complainant as on that date were at New Delhi. On 30.01.2021, the Petitioner No. 1 & Complainant went to New Delhi from Hubli by IndiGo Airlines and they returned back from New Delhi on 14.03.2021 by IndiGo Airlines. In order to overcome from this aspect, the Respondent No. 1 Police have recorded further statement of all the witnesses and changed the date of alleged incident from 07.02.2021 to 28.01.2021. 9. It is submitted that, the allegations in the petition are vague and generalised and will not disclose any cause of action so as to initiate criminal proceedings as against the Petitioners - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5789 CRL.P No. 103502 of 2023 herein. Thus, viewed from any angle, further continuation of proceeding would be abuse of process of law. As such, the entire proceeding before the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed. 10. The Petitioners seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to urge some more grounds at the time of hearing.” 4. Sri.Chethan Munnoli, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that petitioners are no way connected with the allegations made in the petition and unnecessarily they have been implicated in the case only with an intention to harass and blackmail the petitioners and sought for quashing the entire proceedings in CC No.3825/2023. 5. He also pointed out that from the charge sheet materials there are no specific allegations against the petitioners herein and allegations alleged against the petitioners are vague in nature which would not constitute any of the offences alleged against the petitioners and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5789 CRL.P No. 103502 of 2023 sought for quashing the criminal proceedings against them. 6. Per contra, Smt.Girija Hiremath and Sri.Sajid Goodwala, supports the order of taking cognizance and sought for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard the parties, this Court has perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on records, the statements given by the complainant and other witnesses prima facie makes out a case against the present petitioners also for proceeding with the criminal trial. 9. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that at the time of considering the request of the petitioners, this Court cannot hold a mini trial so as to find out whether at all the petitioners are innocent and there is no nexus established between the petitioners and the allegations found in column No.17 of the charge sheet. 10. It is another ground that has been pressed into service is that the first and second respondents were well educated and aspirants of the Civil service and therefore, - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5789 CRL.P No. 103502 of 2023 question of first petitioner harassing the second respondent would not arise. 11. What is to be look into in this regard is not the geographical distance but the allegations that are levelled against the petitioners in the complaint as well as the statements given by the witnesses as against the petitioners herein. 12. Plea of alibi is pressed into service by the petitioners as another ground by contending that as on the date of incident, first petitioner went to New Delhi from Hubballi by Indigo Airlines and returned on 14.03.2021 and as such, he was not at all present for the incident that is said to have occurred on 07.02.2021 at about 10 p.m. 13. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that plea of alibi is a weak piece of evidence that too to be established by the accused in the trial. 14. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that none of the grounds urged in the petition merits in quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5789 CRL.P No. 103502 of 2023 15. Expressing further opinion on the merits of the matter, definitely hamper the rights of the parties during the trial one way or the other. 16. Accordingly, reserving the liberty for the petitioners to urge all available defences during the trial, the following order is passed. ORDER Petition is merit less and is hereby dismissed. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE HMB CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27