- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3092 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100917 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. THOUKHIRKHAN JAMERKHAN HAJI AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. 2. MAMATAJKHAN JAMEERKHAN HAJI AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER, R/O. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. 3. JAMEERKHAN SHABBIRKHAN HAJI AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, R/O. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. 4. SHOHIBKHAN JAMMERKHAN HAJI AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. MEDICAL REPRESENTATIVES, R/O. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. 5. AMZADKHAN JAMEERKHAN HAJI AGE. 18 YEARS, OCC.STUDENT, R/O. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. 6. RUKSHAR SHAHABAD AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. 7. RAFIQ MOULASAB NADAF AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. 8. DADAFEER MEHABOOBSAB NADAF AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:37 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3092 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2023 9. FARVEEN DADAEER NADAF AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH HIREKERUR POLICE. 2. SABRINBANU W/O. TUKHIRLHAN HAJI AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI-581111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SADIQ KANVI, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 9 IN HIREKERUR P.S CR. NO.175/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 109, R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/SE 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HIREKERUR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners challenge the registration of an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and 109 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3092 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2023 2. Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR, alleging that her marriage with Accused No.1 was solemnized on 23.12.2018. She claims that Accused No.1 would return home late at night, pick quarrels, abuse, and assault her. She further alleges that the other accused, who are relatives of Accused No.1, also assaulted, abused, and demanded money from her parental home. 3. On 10.11.2021, while she was three months pregnant, Accused No.1 allegedly abused her in filthy language, kicked her, and dashed her head against the wall. The accused also threatened to terminate her pregnancy and stated that Accused No.1 would marry another woman. Upon informing her parents, she was taken to her parental home. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1- State. 5. The petitioners have submitted a notice dated 29.11.2021, issued to Respondent No.2, asking her to resume conjugal rights. However, the FIR was lodged on 14.09.2022, nearly ten months after the alleged incident, with no plausible explanation for the delay. 6. Respondent No.2 claims she was three months pregnant as of 10.11.2021, but the complaint contains no averments regarding the termination of her pregnancy or the birth of a child. This raises serious doubts about the veracity of the allegations. The complaint appears to have been filed with a - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3092 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2023 revengeful intent. The allegations stem from marital conflicts but have been given a criminal texture. 7. The allegations against the relatives of Accused No.1 are general and omnibus, lacking specific overt acts detailing how and in what manner they subjected Respondent No.2 to mental and physical cruelty or demanded money from her parental home. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, observed: • General and omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes often lead to the misuse of Section 498A IPC. Courts have cautioned against prosecuting the relatives and in-laws of the husband without a prima facie case. • If no specific and distinct role is attributed to the accused, forcing them to undergo trial would be unjust. • Even if an accused is eventually acquitted, the trial itself leaves lasting scars, which must be avoided unless a clear case is made out. 9. In the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners, merely proceeding on the basis of general and omnibus allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the investigation and proceedings against the petitioners are quashed. ORDER i) The petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3092 CRL.P No. 100917 of 2023 ii) The impugned the First Information Report in Crime No.175/2022 of Hirekeru Police Station is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82