- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3222 CRL.P No. 200023 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200023 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. AZIM MIYA ROUF @ ABDUL AZIM MANIYAR S/O ABDUL ROUF AGE 43 YEARS,OCC : COOLIE 2. AFASARUNISA BEGUM W/O MD. ROUF MANIYAR AGE 50 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE 3. ANWAR MIYA @ MD. ANWAR S/O MD. ISMAIL SAB AGE 25 YEARS, OCC :COOLIE 4. FATIMA BEGUM W/O ABDUL NAYIM AGE 43 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE 5. SAMINA BEGUM W/O MD. ANWAR AGE 43 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF UMAR COLONY, AZADPUR ROAD, KALABURAGI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3222 CRL.P No. 200023 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MAHILA POLICE STATION KALABURAGI CITY, DIST : KALABURAGI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI BENCH, DIST : KALABURAGI 585103 2. SHAEDA BEGUM @ SAIDABI W/O ABDUL RASHID AGE 35 YEARS OCC : HOUSEHOLD, RESIDENT OF UMAR COLONY, AZADPUR ROAD, KALABURAGI 585107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.GOPAL KRISHNA YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.B.K.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING TO EXERCISE INHERENT POWERS U/SEC. 482 OF CR.PC, EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT AT KALABURAGI IN CRIME NO. 23/2021, KALABURAGI WOMEN PS (C.C.NO.13170/2022) FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 489A,323,504,506,109,149 IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3222 CRL.P No. 200023 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are the accused Nos.3 to 7 in Crime No.23/2021 of respondent - police and C.C No.13170/2020 pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court at Kalaburagi for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 109 r/w 149 of IPC. 2. The ranks of the parties before the Trial Court will be considered as it is, henceforth in this petition for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. The case of the prosecution is that, the marriage of respondent No.2 was solemnized with accused No.1 on 30.04.2008 at Mukta Village as per their customs. At the time of marriage, her parents had given gold ornaments along with cash and spent money for wedding purposes. After the marriage, she started residing along with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3222 CRL.P No. 200023 of 2024 family members of her husband. She was taken care of nicely for two months, thereafter, the accused started harassing and demanding her to bring additional dowry from her parents' house. 4. It is further stated that, she went to her parents' house and borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from her father and gave it to accused No.1. Again, she was asked to bring additional dowry from her parents. As she could not meet their demands, she was harassed and tortured by her husband and in-laws on one or the other pretext. Consequently, she was thrown out of her house. Therefore, she started residing with her parents in their house. Again, her husband was demanding her to bring money as he wished to go to abroad. 5. It is stated that she had adjusted the money and gave the same to her husband to go to abroad. Her husband stayed there for 5 years and came back to India. She went to meet her husband, at that time, again the family members have insisted her to bring additional amount to clear the debt of her husband by stating that her husband - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3222 CRL.P No. 200023 of 2024 had borrowed heavy loan for the purpose of going abroad. 6. On 15.11.2020 around 12.00 noon, her husband and in-laws went to her parents' house and started assaulting her. The said quarrel was pacified by the intervention of her father. Therefore, she lodges a complaint against her husband and in-laws. 7. Heard Sri.Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Gopal Krishna Yadav, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State and Sri.B.K.Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations made against the petitioners are baseless and bald, which are omnibus in nature. According to the complainant, she has not specifically mentioned the date of assault or harassment given by the petitioners. 9. It is further submitted that when there are no specific allegations made against the petitioners, it is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3222 CRL.P No. 200023 of 2024 appropriate to ask them to face the trial. Even on reading the averments of the complaint in its entirety, the possibility of conviction is remote and therefore, the petition has to be allowed and the case against the petitioners has to be quashed. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to allow the petition. 10. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State justified the averments of the complaint and also FIR and he prays to reject the petition. 11. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopted the arguments of learned High Court Government Pleader and he prays to reject the petition. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, it is appropriate to refer the averments of the complaint for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the petitioners are required to be directed to face the trial or not. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3222 CRL.P No. 200023 of 2024 13. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH1,for effective analysis of the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.19 held as under: “19. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. [Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P., (2023) 15 SCC 488] on the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482CrPC. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482CrPC or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3222 CRL.P No. 200023 of 2024 will not be enough for the court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.” 14. In the present case, the respondent No.2 married accused No.1 on 30.04.2008. According to her, she stayed in her matrimonial house for two months happily and thereafter she had been subjected to cruelty both mentally and physically for want of dowry. Though she made several allegations against the petitioners, all the allegations are omnibus in nature and no specific overt-act is attributed against these petitioners. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that even if the petitioners are allowed to face the trial, the possibility of conviction is very bleak. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3222 CRL.P No. 200023 of 2024 15. Having considered the nature and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the case against the petitioners is required to be quashed. 16. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in C.C No.13170/2022 arising out of Crime No.23/2021 pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Kalaburagi, as against the petitioners, is quashed. SD/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE SRT/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44