- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2342 CRL.P No. 200244 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200244 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. RAZIYA SULTANA W/O PASHA MIYA, AGE:57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, H.NO. 1-949/10/12 OLD JEWRAGI ROAD, SHAHABAZ COLONY, KALABURAGI-585103. 2. ASMA SULTANA W/O ABDUL GAFHUR, AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O H.NO. 4-93 ASAR MOHALLA, 3RD BLOCK NALWAR-585225, TQ. CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI. 3. RIYAZ PASHA S/O TOLA PASHA, AGE:43 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, H.NO. 1-949/10/ OLD JEWRAGI ROAD, SHAHABAZ COLONY, KALABURAGI-585103. 4. LIYAQAT ALI PATEL S/O MOHAMMED ALI PATEL, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, H.NO. 1-892/10 C OLD JEWRAGI ROAD, SHAHABAZ COLONY CJ COLONY, KALABURAGI-585103. 5. ASHRAF ALI S/O MOHAMMED ALI PATEL, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2342 CRL.P No. 200244 of 2025 AGE ABOUT: 50 YEARS, H.NO. 1-892/10C OLD JEWARGI ROAD, P AND T QUARTERS, SHAHABAZ COLONY, KALABURAGI CITY-585102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN PS, KALABURAGI NORTH SUB DIVISION, KALABURAGI CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT KALABURAGI-585107. 2. SADIA FATIMA W/O AMJAD PATEL, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD, R/O. SHAHABAZ COLONY JEWGARI ROAD, KALABURAGI CITY, DIST. KALABURAGI-585103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC. 528 OF BNSS,2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.19/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 85, 115(2), 352, 351, 49, 190 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) ACT -2023 AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN PS WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. C J (JD) AND JMFC KALABURAGI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2342 CRL.P No. 200244 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. The petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the registration of criminal case in Crime No.19/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351, 49 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNS 2023’) and also under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short ‘D.P Act’). Factual matrix of the case: 2. The case of the prosecution is that, the respondent No.2 married Amzad Patel on 24.12.2021. At the time of marriage, gold ornaments and cash were given as per the customs prevailing in the said community. After the marriage, she was taken care of nicely for three months. Thereafter, the petitioners started harassing the respondent No.2 by stating that, she did not bring sufficient dowry at the time of marriage. Further, she was ill-treated to bring dowry of Rs.5 lakhs. 3. It is further stated in the complaint that, Smt.Asma, sister-in-law of respondent No.2 was residing in the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2342 CRL.P No. 200244 of 2025 neighbouring house. She used to visit the house of her mother and she was instigating others to quarrel with her for not bringing the additional dowry. It is further stated that, the husband of respondent No.2 was assaulting her by suspecting her fidelity. All these issues made her to go out of the house, therefore, she was residing along with her parents for a considerable length of time. However, her husband did not turn up to her parents house to bring her back to the matrimonial home. As she was not called back to her matrimonial home, she went voluntarily along with her brothers. The petitioners herein were threatening her and did not allow her to enter into the house. In fact, the mother-in-law of respondent No.2 was threatening the husband of respondent No.2 that she would consume poison if the respondent No.2 is allowed to come inside the house. Therefore, she had to stay in the house of her parents. 4. It is further stated that, somehow, she learnt that her husband was searching for a second alliance for marriage. In order to confirm the said fact, she along with her brothers, went to the house of her husband on 02.02.2025 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2342 CRL.P No. 200244 of 2025 around 4.00 p.m. At that time, both petitioners No.1 and 2 scolded her by stating that she had to bring an additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs, otherwise, she would not be allowed to come inside the house. The husband of respondent No.2 had assaulted her by holding her tuft in front of all the members, she was rescued by her brothers. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint on the following day around 4.30 p.m. The respondent police after registering the case conducting the investigation. 5. Heard Sri.Liyaqat Fareed Ustad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1 – State and Sri.Avinash A.Upaloankar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners are the in-laws of respondent No.2. Though, the respondent No.2 had made several allegations against these petitioners, the petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences. In fact, the adamant attitude and also unadjustable act of respondent No.2 led the entire family to be in a miserable state. In fact, the respondent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2342 CRL.P No. 200244 of 2025 No.2 failed to understand the family and also did not co- operate with the in-laws properly. 7. It is further submitted that on reading of the entire complaint, the ingredients of harassment cannot be made out. Even the ingredients of the demand of dowry are made out in the complaint, no specific overt-act is attributed against the petitioners individually. There are no independent eyewitnesses to substantiate that the petitioners were quarreling with the respondent No.2 in respect of not bringing the dowry of Rs.5 lakhs from her parents’ house. The respondent No.2 had filed this case only to take vengeance against the petitioners and also to implicate them in a false case. Therefore, the petition may be allowed and the entire proceedings may be quashed against them. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that, in fact, there are several allegations made against the in-laws. The mother-in-law had also assaulted the respondent No.2. The sister-in-law was instigating others to demand dowry of Rs.5 lakhs and to give harassment to respondent No.2. The averments made in the complaint - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2342 CRL.P No. 200244 of 2025 has to be tried and it has to be decided by the Trial Court. Merely because, the parents of accused No.1 and others were residing in different localities, is not sufficient to quash the proceedings. 9. It is further submitted that, in fact, on careful reading of the complaint, prima facie, there are materials to proceed with the trial. Hence, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings at the initial stage. Making such submissions, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Similarly, the learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State adopted the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.2 and he further submitted that the allegations are very serious in nature. The husband of respondent No.2 had assaulted her in front of others. There are eyewitnesses to the incident. Therefore, it is not appropriate to quash the proceedings. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the charge sheet, it appears from the record that the respondent No.2 married accused No.1, who is not the petitioner in this case. There - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2342 CRL.P No. 200244 of 2025 are several allegations made against the petitioners herein, who are the in-laws. The main allegations made against the in-laws are that, all these petitioners were demanding an additional dowry and also instigating the accused No.1 to assault the respondent No.2. As such, she was forced to go out of the house and wanted to stay away from her matrimonial house. However, the allegations made against the in-laws is not sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Though, she made several allegations that, they were harassing the respondent No.2 and demanding an additional dowry, the said allegations are made against them in an omnibus nature. 12. The accused No.1 got issued notice to respondent No.2 and asked her to join the matrimonial home, however, she refused to join the same and lodged a complaint. The FIR would indicate that the incident had taken place on 02.02.2025 and a complaint was filed on the following day. However, on reading of the entire complaint, on 02.02.2025 at about 4.00 p.m., it is stated that when she had been to her matrimonial home, she was not allowed - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2342 CRL.P No. 200244 of 2025 inside the house. Her mother-in-law was quarreling with accused No.1 that he should not allow the respondent No.2 inside the house. Thereafter, the accused No.1 assaulted her in front of others. 13. The petitioners are in-laws of the respondent No.2. It appears that, she filed a complaint against them only in order to implicate them in a false case. It is noted that, a legal notice got issued to the respondent No.2 by accused No.1 to join the matrimonial home. However, no efforts were made to reconcile the issues between the parties. 14. Now, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 which read thus: “14. In Preeti Gupta and another vs. State of Jharkhand and another [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that the Courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing 1 (2023) Livelaw (SC) 731 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2342 CRL.P No. 200244 of 2025 with matrimonial cases, as allegations of harassment by husband’s close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection. 15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra and another vs. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the ‘be all and end all’ of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.” 15. On careful reading of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it appears that mere mentioning of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not sufficient to hold that the ingredients are attracted on such allegations. It is further emphasized that the word ‘cruelty’ though has not been defined in the act, such cruelty which forced the woman to commit suicide must be considered. Mere dispute relating to matrimonial issues cannot be construed as ‘cruelty’ as - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2342 CRL.P No. 200244 of 2025 defined under Section 498A of IPC. Such being the fact, in the present case, the allegations are not sufficient to hold that the petitioners are required to be allowed them to face the trial. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, the petition is deserves to be allowed. 16. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The registration of FIR and complaint arising out of Crime No.19/2025 by the respondent No.1 – police pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn) and JMFC Kalaburagi, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50 CT:PK