- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8919 CRL.P No. 102044 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102044 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SMT. ATTAULLA S/O. BASHIR SAB GUMNAL, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: KOLLI, R/O. CHIKKONATI VILLAGE, TAL: HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI, PIN-581109. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SADYOJAT R. BALIGATTIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HD WOMEN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. SABEENA BANU W/O. ATAULLAH GUMNAL, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. CHIKKNOTI, TAL: HIREKERUR, DIST. HAVERI, PIN-581109. NOW AT H. NO.121, LOKAPPANA HAKKAL, VIDYA NAGAR, HUBBALLI, TAL: HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD, PIN-580021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.11422/2023 BEFORE THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI, FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 504, 506, 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 4 OF THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO. 1, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8919 CRL.P No. 102044 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T) 1. Sri. Sadyojat R. Baligattimath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire proceedings in CC No.11422/2023 on the file of III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the petitioner/accused No.1. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this court has quashed the entire proceedings against accused nos.2 ad 3 in Crl.P.No.101738/2024. Hence, on the ground of parity also he has filed this petition. The contents of para 4 to 12 are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8919 CRL.P No. 102044 of 2025 4. The brief facts of the de-facto complainant are as under: On 28.06.2023, the de-facto complainant lodged complaint against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences, alleging that her marriage was solemnized with accused No.1 on 27.11.2010. After the marriage, the relationship of de-facto complainant and accused No.1 was cordial. Thereafter, accused Nos.1 to 3 started harassing the de-facto complainant to bring additional dowry and also intentionally insulted her to provoke breach of peace. Hence, she left matrimonial home and went to parental house at Hubballi. On 4.6.2023, when de-facto complainant was engaged in bathroom, accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted her with their legs, accused Nos.1 to 3 pressed her neck to eliminate her. However, she escaped from their clutches and lodged complaint before Hamsabhavi Police Station and thereafter lodged complaint to Women Police Station, Hubballi, where she compromised the matter with her husband. On 22.6.2023, at about 2.30 p.m., accused No.1 came to her parents’ house and picked up quarrel with her, assaulted on her and made criminal intimidation to eliminate her. Hence, she lodged complaint. Taking exception to the same, accused Nos.2 and 3, parents of accused No.1 and in-laws of de-facto complainant, filed this petition to quash the entire proceedings against them. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8919 CRL.P No. 102044 of 2025 5. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the allegations made in complaint, FIR and column No.17 of charge sheet, there is prima facie allegation against accused No.1 and there are no specific allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e., petitioners herein. It is contended that the de-facto complainant herself shows certain dates of cause of action. On those dates, she made allegations against accused No.1 that, on 4.6.2023, accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted the de-facto complainant and on 22.06.2023, accused Nos.1 assaulted her, abused her in filthy language and made criminal intimidation to eliminate her. Except these allegations, there are general and omnibus allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 and hence, the ingredients of Sections 498A, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of D.P. Act are not attracted. Thus, the counsel prayed to allow the petition. 6. Learned AGA for respondent No.1 vehemently argued and submitted that there are prima facie allegations against accused Nos.2 & 3. Accused Nos.1 to 3 harassed the de-facto complainant physically and mentally in order to bring more dowry from her parental house and in this regard, they assaulted, abused her and made criminal intimidation to de-facto complainant. There is prima facie allegation against accused Nos.2 & 3. Thus, prayed to dismiss the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8919 CRL.P No. 102044 of 2025 7. Perused the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court in C.C. No.11422/2023. The learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, these petitioners have filed these petitions for quashment. 8. As per the complaint, FIR and column No.17 of charge sheet, the de-facto complainant has specifically stated that she was thrown out from the matrimonial house in the month of June 2023. On 4.6.2023, accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted her, abused her in filthy language and intentionally insulted her to provoke breach of peace and on 22.06.2023, accused No.1 assaulted her and voluntarily caused hurt in respect of demand of dowry. The incident took place on 4.6.2023 and 22.06.2023 and the complaint was lodged on 28.06.2023. From the perusal of the material available on record, there is prima facie allegation against accused No.1. Further, there are some omnibus and general allegations against accused Nos.2 and 3 and there is no specific allegation made against accused Nos.2 and 3 as to how and in what manner they subjected the de-facto complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically and also demanded to bring money from her parental house. 9. In this case, there is some delay in lodging complaint, but, the de-facto complainant has not offered any plausible explanation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8919 CRL.P No. 102044 of 2025 the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M.Madhusudhan Rao1 2008 15 SCC 581 at para 30 has held as follows: “30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.” 10. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar2 at para 18 has held as follows: “18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating 1 (2008) 15 SCC 582 2 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8919 CRL.P No. 102044 of 2025 her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.” 11. In the absence of any material that accused Nos.2 and 3 have subjected the 2nd respondent – de- facto complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically and also that there was a demand made to bring money from her parental home, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the aforesaid offences is without any substance. Even otherwise, the last event that has taken place on 4.6.2023 and the FIR was lodged on 28.06.2023 without offering any plausible explanation. 12. In view of the preceding analysis, the continuation of criminal proceedings as against accused - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8919 CRL.P No. 102044 of 2025 Nos.2 and 3 will be an abuse of process of law. However, there is prima facie material against accused No.1. 4. On perusal of the impugned order and petition, this Court opined that there is a prima facie case against accused No.1. 5. Admittedly, this petition is filed on 07.05.2025. As per the order sheet maintained by the trial Court, the trial Court framed charge against petitioner/accused No.1 and This aspect is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the framing of charges signifies that the Court, after perusing charge-sheet material, believes that there is sufficient reason to proceed with trial. 6. Now the charge has been framed and Hon’ble Apex Court in several judgments held that once charges are framed and if the matter is set-down for trial, Courts must slow in quashing the criminal proceedings filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, or the Court’s generally reluctant to interfere with the trial process after charges have been - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8919 CRL.P No. 102044 of 2025 framed, unless there are exceptional circumstances. In this case, the accused disputing the question of fact. This Court cannot delve into disputed question of facts, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the matter is set-down for trial. Hence, there is no merit in this petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER This Criminal Petition is dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed off. Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE AC /CT-AN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7