- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31520 CRL.P No. 4533 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4533 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SHARPHARAJ @ SARFARAZ HASHMI SYED S/O SYED ABU SALEH MUNIR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.22, KHAN COTTAGE 3RD MAIN ROAD, SRK GARDEN BANGALORE 560041 2. YASMIN @ YASMEEN W/O SARFARAZ HASHMI SYED AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.22, KHAN COTTAGE 3RD MAIN ROAD, SRK GARDEN BANGALOLRE 560041 3. FAIROJAA @ FAIROZUNNISA W/O SHEIK MAHABOOB AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT NO.82, TEACHERS LAYOUT SUDHANIKEHTAN SCHOOL MS PALYA, BANGALORE 560097 4. SHAIKH MEHABOOB @ SHEIKH MAHABOOB S/O SHEEK HYDER AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT NO.82, TEACHERS LAYOUT SUDHANIKETHAN SCHOOL MS PALYA, BANGALORE 560097 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31520 CRL.P No. 4533 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE BY THILAKNAGAR PS REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE AT ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT COMPLEX OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560001 2. AAYISHA SIDDIQA W/O SHAIKH BHARKAT AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT NO 40/60, 2ND CROSS ROAD, KGN LAYOUT, NEXT BHEL LAYOUT MEKKA MASJID BACKSIDE JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU CITY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI CHAND PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 21.08.2023 BEARING CR.NO.213/2023 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 THILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION, U/S 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND AS PER SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING BEFORE THE XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A, PETITIONERS ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.2 TO 5. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31520 CRL.P No. 4533 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The present petition is filed by the father-in-law, mother- in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5, along with accused No.1, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which are presently pending before the Court of the 37th ACMM, Bengaluru. 2. The brief facts leading to the case are as follows: Respondent No.2/defacto complainant lodged a written complaint on 21.08.2023 at about 07:35 p.m., alleging that her husband/accused No.1 and his family members had demanded a dowry of `2,00,000/- and a car and had subjected her and her children to harassment. Based on the said complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No.213/2023. 3. The petitioners, who are the in-laws of respondent No.2, have approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the allegations against them - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31520 CRL.P No. 4533 of 2024 are vague, general, and omnibus in nature, while the substantive allegations are primarily directed against accused No.1-the husband. It is contended that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value, no offence is made out against the present petitioners, and continuation of the proceedings against them would amount to abuse of the process of law. Hence, the petitioners seek exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.213/2023. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/defacto complainant submits that even the in-laws, including the brother-in-law and sister-in-law, have actively participated in harassing respondent No.2 and, therefore, there exists sufficient material to proceed against them as well. Hence, this is not a fit case for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. The learned HCGP, placing reliance on the complaint averments, has also pointed out that specific allegations are made even against the father-in-law, mother-in- law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, and therefore, opposes - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31520 CRL.P No. 4533 of 2024 the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the proceedings at this stage. 6. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the records. 7. A meticulous examination of the written complaint lodged by respondent No.2 on 21.08.2023 reveals that the allegations contained at page 2 of the complaint, more particularly in unnumbered paragraph 3, assume significance for the limited purpose of ascertaining whether there exists prima facie material against the present petitioners. The said portion of the complaint requires to be adverted to in order to assess whether indulgence under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is warranted. Accordingly, the relevant unnumbered paragraph No.3 of the complaint is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "ನಂತರ 2019 ರ ೆಂಬ ಂಗಳ ಈ ಾರಾ ನಮ ಮೆಯವ ೆಲ ಕೂತು %ಾತುಕ&ೆ %ಾ ನ'ಬ()*ೆ +ೇ ೆ ಇರುವಂ&ೆ ./ರು&ಾ0 ೆ! ಆಗ ನಮ ತಂ3ೆ 4ಹ6 ಇಎ8 9ೇಔ; ನ 4.00.000/- ರೂ ಅAಾBCD ಹಣವನುF GೊಟುI 3.500/- ರೂ ಗಳ +ಾ*ೆ %ಾತಾ +ೇ ೆ ಮೆಯನುF %ಾರು&ಾ0 ೆ. ಈ ಮೆ*ೆ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ ನನF ಗಂಡನು ಒಂದು OನವP GೆಲಸGೆR SೋರುವTOಲ. ಆನ ಎಲ ಖಚುWೆಚXಗಳನುF ನಮ ತಂ3ೆYೕ ೋGೊಂರು&ಾ0 ೆ. ಮತು0 ನನ*ೆ ZನF Gಾ[ ೆಕI ಸ)\ Zೕನು ಸ)\ಲ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31520 CRL.P No. 4533 of 2024 ಎಂದು ನನ*ೆ +ೈದು Zೕನು ಅಡು*ೆ ಸ)^ಾ %ಾಡಲ ಎಂದು Oಾಲು _ಂೆ Zೕ ನನಗೂ ಮತು0 ನನF ಮಕR.ಗೂ ಸಹ SೊAೆOರು&ಾ0ೆ. ZನF ತಂ3ೆಯ ಮೆಯ ಕAೆಯವರನುF ಾನು Gೇ.ದವTಗ`ೆೆF9ಾ GೊaIರುವTOಲ ZನFನುF ಮತು0 ZನF ತಂ3ೆಯ ಮೆಯ ಕAೆಯವರನುF bೕವ ಸ_ತ 4ಡುವTOಲೆಂದು bೕವ +ೆದ)Gೆ Sಾcರು&ಾ0ೆ. ನಂತರ ನನF ಗಂಡ 2021ೇ ಾನ ಆಗdI ಂಗಳನುF ನನFನುF 4ಟುI Sೋದeರು ಇಲಯವ ೆಗೂ ನನFೆF ಆಗ ನನF ಮಕಳೆFೕ ಆಗ ಒಂದು ಾ)ಯೂ ೋಡಲು ಬಂOರುವTOಲ." 8. The extracted portion of the complaint, as noticed supra, makes it abundantly clear that respondent No.2/defacto complainant and accused No.1 had separated from the joint family in the year 2019 and have been residing independently in a rented premises. The narration in the complaint unmistakably reveals that the core allegations of cruelty and dowry demand are squarely directed against accused No.1-the husband. The grievance projected by respondent No.2 is essentially that accused No.1 has failed to discharge his responsibilities as a husband and father, that he is unwilling to go out and earn for the maintenance of the family, and that despite being provided a separate residence by her father by paying a substantial sum of `4,00,000/- as security deposit, accused No.1 continued to demand further dowry in the form of cash and a car. Thus, the substratum of the complaint clearly - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31520 CRL.P No. 4533 of 2024 indicates that the allegations are confined to the conduct of accused No.1 and not to the present petitioners. 9. The learned HCGP has sought to place reliance on the unnumbered second paragraph of the first page of the complaint, wherein it is alleged that immediately after the marriage in 2016, the sister-in-law had telephoned the complainant’s mother stating that “your daughter is not a good person, she has troubled my brother, and she often quarrels.” However, these allegations, on a careful appreciation, appear to be vague, casual, and in the considered view of this Court, an afterthought introduced merely to rope in the sister-in-law. Importantly, these alleged acts pertain to the year 2016, whereas the present complaint has been lodged only in 2023, after a long lapse of nearly seven years. Such stale allegations, without any contemporaneous material or continuity of conduct, cannot form the foundation for prosecution of the in- laws. 10. Be that as it may, the admitted facts reflected in the very complaint disclose that respondent No.2 and accused No.1 moved out of the matrimonial/joint family home in the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31520 CRL.P No. 4533 of 2024 year 2019 and began residing separately in a rented accommodation. Once it is shown that the complainant and her husband have been living separately for more than four years, it would be wholly illogical and improbable to sustain allegations of harassment or cruelty at the instance of the in-laws, more so when they are residing at a different place and are not sharing a common roof with the complainant. The allegations attributed to the father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law are thus not only general and omnibus but also inherently improbable in the backdrop of admitted circumstances. This Court is, therefore, persuaded to hold that the present petitioners are falsely implicated despite not being in a position to interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the complainant after 2019. 11. On the other hand, the allegations against accused No.1-the husband relating to demand of money, insistence for a car, and failure to maintain the complainant and children are specific and prima facie require to be adjudicated upon by way of a full-fledged trial. However, in the absence of any specific, proximate and sustainable allegations against the in-laws, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31520 CRL.P No. 4533 of 2024 continuation of the criminal proceedings against them would amount to abuse of process of law. Consequently, this Court is inclined to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and prevent such abuse of process. 12. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings pending in Crime No.213/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of 37th ACMM Court, Bengaluru are quashed, insofar as the petitioners are concerned. The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15