- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:875 CRL.P No. 101528 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101528 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. SHOUKATALI S/O. GANISAB NADAF AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, RO. KOTABAGI VILLAGE, TAL. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. 2. SMT. SHAKEELABHANU W/O. SHOUKATALI NADAF AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, RO. KOTABAGI VILLAGE, TAL. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINAND A PACHHAPURE AND SRI. RAJENDRA R.PATIL, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HUKKERI POLICE STATION, NOW R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD. 2. SMT. ANARAKALI @ AYESHA W/O. SHOUKATALI NADAF, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. GANDHI NAGAR, HUKKERI, TAL. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 224/2021 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498- A, 323, 504 AND 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AD 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.23 11:46:57 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:875 CRL.P No. 101528 of 2021 OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUKKERI, ORDER SHEET MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A. 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 Nos. 1 and 2 have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (for short, “the D.P. Act”). 2. The prosecution alleges that accused No. 2 is the first wife of accused No. 1, and with her consent, accused No. 1 solemnized his marriage with the de facto complainant in 2018. At the time of marriage, the complainant’s parents gave Rs. 50,000/- to accused No. 1. Initially, accused No. 1 led a cordial matrimonial life with the de facto complainant. However, later, both accused allegedly subjected the de facto complainant to mental and physical cruelty and demanded Rs. 2,50,000/- as additional dowry from her parental home. 3. Respondent No. 2 appeared through counsel, but the counsel subsequently filed a memo for retirement. The memo was accepted, and the name of the counsel was deleted from the cause list. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 neither appeared in person nor through a counsel. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:875 CRL.P No. 101528 of 2021 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 1- State. 5. The marriage between accused No. 1 and the de facto complainant was solemnized in 2018. It is alleged in the complaint that accused No. 1 and the de facto complainant initially led a cordial matrimonial life for six months. Subsequently, the complainant was subjected to cruelty, forcing her to leave the matrimonial home and reside in her parental home. 6. It is further alleged that after marriage, accused No. 1 used to visit the complainant’s parental home and led a cordial life with her. Subsequently, the couple resided in a separate rented house, where accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly began subjecting the complainant to mental and physical cruelty, ultimately forcing her to leave the matrimonial home. The complainant has been residing in her parental home for the past 9 to 10 months, and the accused frequently visited her parental home to demand additional dowry of Rs. 2,50,000/- and threatened her with dire consequences. 7. On 01.12.2020, it is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted the complainant and demanded additional dowry. In relation to the marital dispute, the complainant approached the Hukkeri Police Station, where the police recorded the statements of the accused and closed the complaint. 8. The allegations primarily revolve around the husband and the first wife. Even if accepted on their face, the allegations do - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:875 CRL.P No. 101528 of 2021 not satisfy the essential elements to constitute an offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The allegations are general and omnibus, with no specific overt act detailing how and in what manner each accused subjected the de facto complainant to mental and physical cruelty. It is a settled principle of law that an accused cannot be subjected to trial solely based on general and omnibus allegations. Specific details are required to frame charges under Section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceedings solely on the basis of general and omnibus allegations would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. Both petitioners/accused are also sought to be prosecuted under Section 323 of the IPC. However, the prosecution has not produced substantial evidence to establish that the de facto complainant sustained simple injuries due to any assault by the petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed. b. The impugned proceedings in C.C No.224/2021 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hukkeri, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused Nos.1 and 2 stands quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62