- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4464 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101918 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. KAIRUNISA ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH, AGE: 67 YRS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: H NO 239, NEAR ANJUMAN, HIGH SCHOOL, ISLAMPUR BAINA, VASCO DA GAMA, GOA – 403 802. 2. AMJAD ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH, AGE: 45 YRS, OCC: SELF EMPLOYEE, R/O: H. NO. 239, NEAR ANJUMAN, HIGH SCHOOL, ISLAMPUR BAINA, VASCO DA GAMA, GOA – 403 802. 3. HUSNABANU ABDULAZIZ SHAIKH, AGE: 30 YRS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: APRTMENT NO 101, MOHIDIN’S REGINA APARTMETNS, MERCES, VADDEM, BASCO DA GAMA, GOA – 403 802. …PETITIONERS (BY MISS. NAINA R. NERLI AND SRI VISHWANATH BASAVARJ SULTANPURI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE, BY MAHILA PS. BELAGAVI. REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVT PLEADER. OFFICE AT DHARWAD HIGH COURT, DHARWAD – 580 011. 2. NAZIYA W/O. ASHRAF SHEIKH, AGE: 40 YRS, OCCUPATION: HOUSEWIFE, Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4464 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2023 R/O: H. NO. 28, ANTHONY STREET, CAMP BELAGAVI – 590 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; SRI S.H.YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (528(BNSS)), SEEKING TO QUASH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2, 3, 4 IN C.C. NO.92/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI. IMPUGNED CHARGE SHEET REGISTERED BY MAHILA POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI IN CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO.64/2021, FOR THE OFFENCE’S PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 504, 506 READ WITH 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.92/2022 pertaining to Crime No.64/2021 of Mahila Police Station, Belagavi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4464 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2023 2. The case of the prosecution as stated in Column 17 of the charge-sheet, in brief, is as under: The marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 had taken place on 21.03.2021 and thereafter respondent No.2 started residing along with her husband/accused No.1, mother-in-law/accused No.2, brother-in-law/accused No.3 and sister-in-law/accused No.4. The accused persons used to harass physically and ill-treat respondent No.2-complainant and they used to assault. It is further alleged that accused No.1 was closely talking with accused No.4 and used to roam with her and therefore, the complainant was suspecting accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 kept respondent No.2/complainant in a shed and asked her not to come to his house situated in the plot unless she brings Rs.15,00,000/-. That on 25.08.2021, when accused No.1 was called to the house of the complainant situated at Camp Belagavi for discussion, at that time, accused No.1 quarreled with the complainant and her family members, assaulted her and asked her to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4464 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2023 bring money or otherwise to stay in her parents’ house and committed offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Respondent No.2 had filed complaint on 09.09.2021 and it came to be registered in Crime No.64/2021 of Mahila Police Station, Belagavi, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Investigating Officer, after investigation, filed charge-sheet against the petitioners and accused No.1 for the aforesaid offences. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, a case came to be registered against the petitioners and accused No.1 in C.C. No.92/2022 and it is pending on the file of the learned II JMFC Court, Belagavi. The proceedings of the said criminal case are sought to be quashed in the present petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4464 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2023 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that except the statement of respondent No.2/complainant, there are no other eyewitness regarding the harassment and ill-treatment given by accused persons. She further submits that the allegations against the petitioners are omnibus allegations. Two eyewitnesses cited in the charge-sheet are the mother and the brother of respondent No.2-complainant and they are residing in Camp Belagavi. There are no eyewitnesses to the incident taken place at Goa where respondent No.2 resided with the accused persons. The proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. With this, she prayed for quashing of the proceedings against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that, respondent No.2 in her complaint and in the statement, has specifically made allegations against the petitioners of they abusing and assaulting respondent No.2 and abetted accused No.1 to assault respondent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4464 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2023 No.2/complainant. Charge-sheet material show prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that the complainant in her complaint and in her further statement has made allegation of harassment and assault against the petitioners, the charge-sheet material contains statements of CWs.4 and 5, who are eyewitnesses to the incident. He submits that there are no grounds for quashing the proceedings. With this, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel, this Court has perused the charge-sheet material and other material placed on record. 8. The marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 had taken place on 21.03.2021. After marriage, respondent No.2 started residing with her husband- accused No.1, her mother-in-law/accused No.2/petitioner - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4464 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2023 No.1, brother-in-law/accused No.3/petitioner No.2 and sister-in-law/accused No.4/petitioner No.3 at Goa. Respondent No.2 in her complaint and in her further statement has stated that, her husband, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law used to abuse her in filthy language and used to assault her and ill-treat her. The said allegations against the petitioners, who are the mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of respondent No.2 are omnibus allegations. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, has held as under: “17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-A 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4464 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2023 and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” 9. The accusation against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 are general and omnibus allegations. There are no specific allegations against each of the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 either in the complaint or in the statement of the complainant/respondent No.2. Therefore, the proceeding against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law. More so, the statement of the eyewitnesses i.e. PW.4-mother of respondent No.2 and CW.5-brother of respondent No.2 is with regard to the allegation of assault by accused No.1. Considering all - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4464 CRL.P No. 101918 of 2023 these aspects, the petitioners have made out a case for quashing the proceedings against them. 10. In the result, the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 in C.C. No.92/2022 pending on the file of the learned II JMFC Court, Belagavi pertaining to Crime No.64/2021 of Mahila Police Station, Belagavi, are quashed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE Kmv CT-ASC