- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15456 CRL.P No. 711 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 711 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KHALIDA JABEEN W/O. ASGAR AHMED, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/AT NO. 92-1, HULIYAR ROAD, ARASIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103. 2. ASGAR AHAMED S/O. M.K. NAJEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/AT NO.92-1, HULIYAR ROAD, ARASIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103. 3. SADIQ AHAMED S/O. ASGAR AHAMED, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT, R/AT NO. 90/91, BEHIND SADATH ENGINEERING WORKS, HULIYAR ROAD, ARASIKERE TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 103. 4. ILIYAS AHMED S/O. LATE MOHAMMED ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/AT NO. 262, III MAIN, SUBASHNAGAR, MYSORE-570 007. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15456 CRL.P No. 711 of 2019 5. SMT. KANEEZ HAJIRA W/O. ZEESHAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/AT NO. 262, SUBASHNAGAR, MYSORE-570 007. 6. SMT. ANJUM FATHIMA @ FATHIMUNNISA W/O. MOHAMMED YOUSUF SHARIFF HA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/AT NO. 994, 6TH CROSS, K.R. PURAM, ALUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 213. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MANJEGOWDA B.V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. ASMABEGUM W/O. ASHFAQ AHAMED, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, NO.2534, NEAR MOUZAM MASJID, NALABANDAVADI MOHALLA, RAMANAGARA-571 511. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA-571 511, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MUTHURAJU A., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 (ABSENT); SRI. MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF THE FIR IN CR.NO.79/18 OF WOMEN POLICE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15456 CRL.P No. 711 of 2019 STATION, RAMANAGARA, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, RAMANAGARA, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 323, 504 AND 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the registration of an FIR against them in Crime No.79/2018 by the respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (henceforth referred to as "DP Act"). 2. (i) The respondent No.1 being the daughter-in-law of the petitioners No.1 and 2, lodged a complaint before the respondent No.2 on 04.12.2018 alleging that her husband was demanding dowry and that after the marriage, her father had transferred a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to his account. Later, her husband had travelled to Saudi Arabia. After his return, he demanded further sum and her father had paid Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, on 01.10.2016, her husband and her in-laws - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15456 CRL.P No. 711 of 2019 expressed a desire to go to Dubai and expected her parents to pay the cost of travel. She alleged that her brother-in-law paid a sum of Rs.43,500 for visa and passport. She also claimed that her mother-in-law had forced her to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,000/- from her account on two occasions. She also alleged that she was forced to transfer a sum of Rs.50,000/-to the petitioner No.4 and claimed that her mother-in-law had taken away her ATM card and had handed it over to the petitioner No.4 who withdrew money from her account. (ii) She further claimed that, while she was suffering from typhoid, her husband came down from Dubai and left her at her parents house. She alleged that, her husband claimed he would not go back to Dubai as he desired to do business in India and therefore compelled her to obtain Rs.10,00,000/- from her father, failing which, he threatened her not to come to the matrimonial home. She also alleged that she was physically abused by her husband as well as her in-laws. She further alleged that, on 09.09.2017, her husband claimed that he had landed a job in Kuwait but he had actually travelled to Dubai which he had suppressed. She claimed that her husband had stopped all communication with her. With these and other - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15456 CRL.P No. 711 of 2019 allegations, she claimed that her in-laws, the maternal uncle of her husband as well as her sisters-in-law were harassing and threatening her demanding more money from her parents. Based on this, the respondent No.2 registered Crime No.79/2018 for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the FIR drawn against them, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law and petitioner No.4 is the maternal uncle of the husband of the respondent No.1, while petitioners No.5 and 6 are the sisters- in-law of the respondent No.1. He contends that, a perusal of the information furnished by respondent No.1 with respondent No.2 shows that except stray allegations that petitioners No.5 and 6 were instigating the petitioners No.1 and 2, there is no material to justify offences under Sections 498A, 323 of IPC or under Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. (ii) He further contends that petitioner No.4 is the maternal uncle of the husband of the respondent No.1 while petitioner No.3 is the brother-in-law of the respondent No.1 and there are no overt allegations against them regarding - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15456 CRL.P No. 711 of 2019 offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of DP Act. iii) As regards petitioners No.1 and 2, he contends that they are all senior citizens and they are not concerned with the matrimonial life of the respondent No.1 with the son of the petitioners No.1 and 2. He therefore submits that the impugned FIR registered against the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law and deserves to be quashed. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has remained absent throughout and therefore this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 submitted that, a perusal of the complaint lodged by respondent No.1 before respondent No.2 shows the complicity of all the petitioners. He submits that petitioners No.1 and 2 are the mother-in-law and father- in-law of respondent No.1 while petitioner No.3 is the brother- in-law. Petitioner No.4 is the maternal uncle of the husband of the respondent No.1 while petitioners No.5 and 6 are the sisters-in-law of the respondent No.1. He submitted that all of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15456 CRL.P No. 711 of 2019 them have instigated the petitioners No.1 and 2 and their son to demand dowry from the parents of the respondent No.1. He therefore submits that initiation of prosecution against the petitioners is justified. He submits that since the FIR is registered and the investigation is yet to take place, this petition is premature and therefore prays that the same be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2. 7. A perusal of the information provided by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.2 shows that the allegations were primarily directed against the husband of respondent No.1 and her mother-in-law and father-in-law. No doubt, respondent No.1 has made passing allegations against the petitioners No.3, 4, 5 and 6. However, there are no clear allegations about their complicity in the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506, 149 of IPC or under Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15456 CRL.P No. 711 of 2019 8. In that view of the matter, the continuation of the proceedings against the said petitioners is unwarranted and is an abuse of the process of law. The Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another (AIR 2025 SC 173) held that when there is no clear allegations against the persons responsible, the Court should not hesitate to quash the proceedings against the far relatives of the complainant and her spouse. 9. Hence, the following order is passed: ORDER i) The criminal petition is allowed-in-part. ii) The FIR registered against the petitioners No.3, 4, 5 and 6 by the respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the DP Act, is quashed. iii) The respondent No.2 is directed to conclude the investigation as regards petitioners No.1 and 2 and their son and take necessary steps as provided in law within a period of three - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15456 CRL.P No. 711 of 2019 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26