- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1940 CRL.P No. 102456 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102456 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. MAKBUL BEE W/O. EMAM SHAIKH AGE. 77 YEARS, R/O. H. NO.11-1041/386/387, NEAR SHAHJEELANI DARGAH, MADINA COLONY, MSK MILL, JEELANABAD, GULBARGA-585101, KARNATAKA. 2. FARZANA BEGUM @ SHAIKH W/O. BASAHA SHAIKH, AGE. 45 YEARS, R/O. H. NO.11-1041/386/387, NEAR SHAHJEELANI DARGAH, MADINA COLONY, MSK MILL, JEELANABAD, GULBARGA-585101, KARNATAKA. 3. ARIFA BEGUM @ SHAIKH W/O. SULEMAN SHAIKH AGE. 41 YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO.104, RINGH ROAD, BEHIND RAJIV GANDHI COLLEGE, MADINA COLONY, GULBARGA-585101, KARNATAKA. 4. SHAIKH SULEMAN S/O. NAZEER K AGE. 44 YEARS, R/O. PLOT NO.104, RINGH ROAD, BEHIND RAJIV GANDHI COLLEGE, MADINA COLONY, GULBARGA-585101, KARNATAKA. 5. ALTAF SHAIKH S/O. EMAM SHAIKH AGE. 42 YEARS, R/O. H. NO.11-1041/386/387, B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.06 11:21:02 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1940 CRL.P No. 102456 of 2023 NEAR SHAHJEELANI DARGAH, MADINA COLONY, MSK MILL, JEELANABAD, GULBARGA-585101, KARNATAKA. 6. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA SHAIKH S/O. EMAM SHAIKH, AGE. 47 YEARS, SHAHNAZ MANZIL, SECOND FLOOR, ROOM NO.3, BHAGYODAYA NAGAR, LANE 32, SURVEY NUMBER 51/2A/32/2, KONDHWA, NEAR AFLAHA MANZIL, PUNE-111045, MAHARASHTRA. 7. ASIFA BEGUMA @ ASHEEFA SHAIKH AGE. 39 YEARS, R/O. H. NO.11/1041/64/126, RING ROAD, BEHIND RAJIV GANDHI COLLEGE, MADINA COLONY, GULBARGA-585101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MOHAMMED AZURUDDIN M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BY HOSAPETE TOWN P.S., VIJAYANAGARA R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. 2. ZEENATH P W/O. ELAHI EMAM SHAIKH AGE. 40 YEARS, 4TH WARD, 2ND CROSS, PATEL NAGAR, HOSAPETE (TQ), VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH ALL THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 2 TO 8 IN CC NO. 274/2019 ARISING OUT OF IN CRIME NO. 117/2018 REGISTERED BY HOSAPETE TOWN PS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3, 4, OF DP ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1940 CRL.P No. 102456 of 2023 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/accused, who are being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution’s case is that the de facto complainant is the wife of accused No.1, accused No.2 is her mother-in-law, and the other accused are relatives of accused No.1. The marriage between respondent No.2 (de facto complainant) and accused No.1 was solemnized on 04.10.2013. It is alleged that the petitioners/accused, along with accused No.1, subjected the de facto complainant to mental and physical cruelty, abused and assaulted her, and also demanded money from her parental home. The FIR was lodged on 07.05.2018. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the marriage between accused No.1 and the de facto complainant was dissolved on 17.11.2017, while the FIR was lodged much later on 07.05.2018. He contends that during the subsistence of the marriage, respondent No.2 did not file any complaint and only did so after the divorce, allegedly to extort money from accused No.1. He further submits that respondent No.2 has a habit of solemnizing marriages with the intent to extort money. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1940 CRL.P No. 102456 of 2023 4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the allegations made in the FIR and the charge sheet clearly disclose specific overt acts against each of the petitioners, detailing how and in what manner they subjected the de facto complainant to both mental and physical cruelty and demanded money from her parental home. He argues that the veracity of these allegations should be considered during the trial and cannot be examined at this stage. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent/State reiterates the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties, the following is noted: • The marriage between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 was solemnized on 04.10.2013 and was dissolved on 17.11.2017. • During the subsistence of the marriage, respondent No.2 did not make any allegations of cruelty or dowry demands against the petitioners. • The private complaint was filed only on 03.04.2018, after the marriage had been dissolved. 7. Section 498A of the IPC provides for punishment in cases where a wife is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives. 8. In the present case, the private complaint was filed only after the dissolution of the marriage, while all allegations of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1940 CRL.P No. 102456 of 2023 cruelty and dowry demand pertain to the period when the marriage was subsisting. The fact that respondent No.2 did not make any allegations during the subsistence of the marriage strongly suggests that the complaint was lodged to coerce the accused into a settlement. 9. Furthermore, the allegations in the FIR are omnibus and general in nature, without specifying any overt act detailing how and in what manner each of the accused subjected the de facto complainant to mental and physical cruelty. In the absence of such specific allegations, an offence under Section 498A of IPC cannot be made out. 10. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.274/2019 on the file of the Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, insofar it relates to the petitioners herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8