- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 25679 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. AMEEN KHAN S/O HAMEED KHAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 2. SHAHEENA BANU W/O HAMEED KHAN AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 3. YASMIN TAJ @ YASMEEN D/O HAMEED KHAN AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.15 6TH CROSS, SHIVAJI ROAD, N R MOHALLA, MYSORE-570007 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VASIM PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA SHO, RAMANAGARA WOMEN PS, REPTD. BY HCGP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. AMRIN BANU W/O AMEEN KHAN AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/O 419, BM STREET, DAIRA AREA, NEAR SHERU CIRCLE, CHANAPATNA TOWN, RAMNAGARA, KARNATAKA-562159 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1 SMT. GOWHAR UNNISA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION R/W 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDING IN CR.NO. 114/2019, S.C.NO. 5/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 307 OF IPC AND 3, 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE III ADDL DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMNAGARA AT RAMNAGARA. AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1147/2019 of Ramanagara Women Police Station, pending in SC No.5/2021 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Sri. Vasim Pasha, learned counsel for Sri.Sirajuddin Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Rangaswamy R, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Smt. Gowhar Unnisa, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent No.2 lodged the first information against the petitioners alleging that petitioner No.1 being the husband, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being the mother and sister of accused No.1 have ill-treated respondent No.2. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that she married accused No.1 on 01.07.2017 and from the wedlock, a girl child was born on 07.04.2018. Accused No.1 at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3 started abusing the informant that she is not good looking and he does not like her. There was a demand for additional dowry and he used to harass respondent No.2 in the matrimonial house. She was forcefully dropped near her - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022 parental house on 28.02.2019. On 02.03.2019, accused No.1 along with accused No.2 came to her parental house, abused and assaulted her with hands. The first information was lodged before East Police Station and the police have registered NCR.No.35/2019. Since the petitioners undertook to take respondent No.2 back to matrimonial house and treat her properly, no criminal case was registered. However, the petitioners have not bothered to take her back and therefore, the first information as filed was registered in Crime No.114/2019. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be field for the above said offences. Now the matter is pending in SC.No.5/2021. 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the police complaint came to be filed without any basis. Even though, it is stated in the further statement of the informant that the incident had occurred on 02.03.2019, the petitioners have produced the whatsapp chats between accused No.1 and respondent No.2, which discloses that throughout the day, they are in whatsapp chat and hence, the incident as alleged could not have been occurred. The first information lodged by the informant and the further statement - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022 of the witnesses disclose that the incident had also occurred on 02.03.2019 at 11:30 am, where it is alleged that accused have traveled to Bengaluru to see the informant and have ill-treated respondent No.2 by demanding additional dowry. 6. The wound certificate pertaining to respondent No.2 is produced, according to which, respondent No.2 had sustained two injuries, which are simple in nature and was treated on 02.03.2019. Therefore, there are prima facie materials to constitute the offences as alleged. It cannot be said at this stage that a false complaint came to be filed without any basis. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that, respondent No.2 had filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C seeking maintenance from petitioner No.1. The said petition was withdrawn by respondent No.2 by entering into agreement and petitioner No.1 had agreed to return four gold bangles and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the conditions in the agreement were not honored by the petitioners as they have already withdrawn the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. However, it is the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022 contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that four bangles were returned and even Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by cash. Ofcourse there is no acknowledgment for having complied with terms of the agreement. Therefore, it is a disputed fact. 8. On consideration of the materials on record, there are specific allegations made against each of the petitioners by respondent No.2 for having committed the offences. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of law. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV - CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17