- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35254 CRL.P No. 6551 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6551 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MD AFWAN ALIAS MOHAMMED AFWAN S/O RIYAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 2. TASLEEM TAJ, W/O RIYAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 3. RIYAZ AHMED, S/O ABDUL VAHEB, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. NOORAIN TAJ, W/O MOHAMMED AKMAL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.1561, TUDA LAYOUT, NEAR MINORITY BOYS HOSTEL, MELEKOTE, TUMKUR-572105. ALL ARE RESIDING AT: NO.45, 8TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, K.K HALLI, HBR LAYOUT, YASEENNAGAR, BANGALORE-560043 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SYED SALMAN KHOMEINI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35254 CRL.P No. 6551 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE OF EAST WOMEN POLICE STATION, RESP. BY THE ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. SMT. HALEEMA SADIYA, D/O LATE G. ABDUL WAJID, W/O MOHAMMED AFWAN, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.A207, LYBIANA AVILLA, DODDAGUBBI, BANGALORE-560045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. KEMPARAJU, ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.37/2025 OF EAST WOMEN P.S., BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 85, 352, 351(2) R/W SECTION 3(5) OF BNS ACT, 2023, SECTIONS 4 OF THE D.P. ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 11th ACJM, MAYO HALL, AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35254 CRL.P No. 6551 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings in Cr.No.37/2025 of East Women P.S. for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 352, 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of BNS Act, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the petitioners, who comprise the husband, parents-in-law, and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent, have subjected her to harassment. The 2nd respondent/complainant alleges that her mother-in-law, father-in-law, and sister- in-law were actively conspiring to disrupt her marital life and that she overheard conversations wherein they allegedly discussed separating accused No.1 (her husband) from her. She has further alleged that her in- laws repeatedly pressurized her to make financial contributions towards the household expenses and insisted that she take up a suitable job so as to earn between Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per month, in order to repay - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35254 CRL.P No. 6551 of 2025 certain loans raised by the family. In addition, she has alleged that her husband and in-laws compelled her to consume red meat, despite being aware that she was allergic to it. Based on these allegations, a complaint came to be lodged, leading to registration of a crime, and investigation is presently underway. 3. On a closer examination of the written complaint filed by the 2nd respondent-wife, it emerges that the primary allegations are directed against her husband (accused No.1) and her parents-in-law (accused Nos.2 and 3), who were all residing together until the complainant was allegedly driven out of the matrimonial home. While the complaint does set out specific acts of alleged cruelty and harassment against the husband and the parents-in-law, insofar as petitioner No.4/sister-in-law is concerned, the allegations appear to be omnibus, vague, and lacking in particulars. It is also apparent that respondent No.2 has attempted to implicate petitioner No.4 by making general allegations, despite the fact that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35254 CRL.P No. 6551 of 2025 petitioner No.4 has been living separately at her own marital home in Tumakuru. 4. In this background, while this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to accused No.1 (husband) and accused Nos.2 and 3 (parents-in-law), the material on record compels this Court to take a different view in respect of petitioner No.4/sister-in-law. Records clearly disclose that petitioner No.4 is a married woman, permanently residing with her husband at Tumakuru, whereas accused No.1 and his parents are residing together at HBR Layout, Bengaluru. Prima facie, therefore, petitioner No.4 cannot be said to be sharing a common household with the complainant, and her implication appears to be more in the nature of a sweeping and generalized allegation, without specific material to substantiate her involvement. 5. The settled legal position is that vague and omnibus allegations, particularly against married sisters- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35254 CRL.P No. 6551 of 2025 in-law residing separately, should not ordinarily be permitted to sustain criminal prosecution, as such proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. Having regard to the fact that petitioner No.4 is married, residing at Tumakuru, and not part of the shared household at Bengaluru, and in view of the allegations being primarily directed against the husband and parents- in-law, this Court is satisfied that a case for interference is made out. Accordingly, this Court finds it just and proper to quash the proceedings as against petitioner No.4 alone, while leaving the investigation to proceed against the other accused. ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed in part. ii) The proceedings in Crime No.37/2025 of East Women Police Station, Bengaluru, pending on the file of the XI Additional CMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed insofar as petitioner No.4 is concerned. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35254 CRL.P No. 6551 of 2025 iii) It is made clear that the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to complete the investigation against the remaining accused and take action in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40