- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498 CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025 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.100495 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHAKILA ADAM SHAIKH, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O: 8TH CROSS, ASAD KHAN SOCIETY, BELAGAVI – 01. 2. MUZAFFAR ADAM SHAIKH AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 8TH CROSS, ASAD KHAN SOCIETY, BELAGAVI – 01. 3. SUMAYA MUZAFAR SHAIKH, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O: 8TH CROSS, ASAD KHAN SOCIETY, BELAGAVI – 01. 4. ATHAR ADAM SHAIKH, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: 8TH CROSS, ASAD KHAN SOCIETY, BELAGAVI – 01. 5. AYISHA ATHAR SHAIKH, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O: 8TH CROSS, ASAD KHAN SOCIETY, BELAGAVI – 01. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI ANWARALI D. NADAF, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498 CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE, BY WOMEN PS, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE AT DHARWAD HIGH COURT, DHARWAD – 580 011. 2. ALIYA KOUSAR W/O. MOHAMMEDWAIS SHAIKH, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O: PLOT NO.60/A, 7TH CROSS, VEERBHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590 016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR IN CRIME NO. 13/2023 AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN C.C.NO. 2936/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IIND JMFC, BELAGAVI AGAINST THE PETITIONER 1 TO 5/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 6. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRESENT CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. 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 petitioners –accused nos.2 to 6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C (Section 528 of BNSS) praying to quash the complaint, FIR in crime No.13/2023 and proceedings in C.C.No.2936/2023 registered for offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498 CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity) pending on the file of the JMFC II Court, Belagavi so far as petitioners –accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned. 2. The case of respondent No.2 –complainant in brief is as under; Respondent No.2 is married with accused No.1 on 30.08.2021 and thereafter, she has started residing in her husband house along with petitioners. Petitioners use to abuse her in filthy language and use to say she was not taught proper cooking and doing work in the home. It is further alleged that when respondent No.2 –complainant was pregnant and they did not take care of her, made her to work, kept her hungry and physically tortured her. The complaint has been sent to her parent’s house when she was 07 months pregnant and she gave birth to female child on 16.07.2022. Thereafter, accused No.1 and petitioners did not come to her parent’s house to take her and her child to her husband house. On basis of said - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498 CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025 information, the case came to be registered in Crime No.13/2023 of Women Police Station Belagavi for offenses punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC. The Police after investigation have filed charge sheet against petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC. On basis of said charge sheet, the case has been registered against petitioners in C.C.No.2936/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and it is pending on the file of the JMFC II Court, Belagavi. The proceedings of said case have been sought to be quashed in this petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned AGA for respondent No.1 –State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that allegations made against petitioners are general omnibus allegations and on that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498 CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025 Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs State of Bihar & Ors1. He further submits that respondent No.2 – complainant has been sent to her parents house when she was 07 months pregnant and she gave birth to female child on 16.07.2022 and complaint has been filed on 10.02.2023. There is delay in filing the complaint and the delay has not been explained in the complaint. On perusal of the charge sheet materials, offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is not attracted. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Prakash S/o Venkatray Raikar and others Vs The State of Karnataka by Yellapura P.S and Another2. He further submits that the said giving of life threat by petitioners does not attracted offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and on that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Mohammed Ataulla A and others Vs The 1 Reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 2 Rendered in Crl.P.No.10207/2021 decided on 08.04.2022 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498 CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025 State of Karnataka by Konaje Police Station and another3. He further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Harayana and Others Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others4 has given guidelines for considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and out of them, guidelines Nos. 1, 5 and 7 are relied by learned counsel. He further submits that proceedings against petitioners are abuse of law. With these, he prays to allow the petition. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for respondent No.1 – State would contend that on reading of the complaint filed by respondent No.2, there are specific allegations of ill- treatment, torture and harassment by petitioners to her. Charge sheet materials show prima facie case against petitioners for offences alleged against them. With these, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 3 Rendered in Crl.P.No.3768/2022 decided on 05.10.2020 4 Reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498 CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025 6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has perused the charge sheet materials and other materials placed on record. 7. The marriage of respondent No.1 with accused No.1 had taken place on 03.08.2021. After marriage, respondent No.2 has started residing in her husband house along with petitioners and her husband. The accusation of assault is against accused No.1 who is husband of respondent No.2. There are no allegations of any assault by petitioners as seen in Cl.No.17 of the charge sheet. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is not attracted against petitioners. The only allegation against petitioners in the complaint is that they gave life threat as complainant has made suspicion against her co-sister. In the case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Mohammed(Supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed in para No.7 as under: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498 CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025 “7. Likewise, the threats alleged to have been issued against respondent No.2/complainant also do not attract the ingredient of sections 504 or 506 IPC. In order to constitute offences under these provisions, the accused ought to have intentionally insulted or given provocation to the complainant or any other persons intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break public peace.” On perusal of the complaint and FIR, there are allegations whatsoever of criminal intimidated by petitioners as to render them liable for prosecution under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC. 8. The allegations of harassment and ill-treatment alleged against petitioners are general and omnibus allegations. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar(supra) has observed as under; “11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498 CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025 However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as Section 498-A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21) “21.It would be relevant at this statge to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members has been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordship observed therein with which we entirely agree that:(SCC p.698, para 12) ‘12. … There has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498 CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025 suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.’ The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes. 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 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498 CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025 eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.” 9. On perusal of averments of the complaint and statements of witnesses, allegations against petitioners of harassment and ill-treatment are general and omnibus allegations. Therefore, the proceedings against petitioners are abuse of process of law. 10. In the result, the following ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings against petitioners in C.C.No.2936/2023 pending on the file of the JMFC II Court, Belagavi are quashed so far as petitioners –accused Nos.2 to 6 are concerned. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE DSP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28