- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:873 CRL.P No. 101930 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101930 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. NOORUNNISA ABDULKAIR BICHHU AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KUDACHI-591311, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. MAKSOODHAMMAD ABDULKAIR BICHHU AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. KUDACHI-591311, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. AAKRAT MAKSOODHAMMAD BICHHU AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KUDACHI-591311, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. WAJIDA ABDULKAIR BICHHU AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KUDACHI-591311, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. LUBINA FAROOQ ISMAIL MAGADUM AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KUDACHI-591311, TQ. RAIBAG,DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. SALMA ABDULKAIR BICHHU AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KUDACHI-591311, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:873 CRL.P No. 101930 of 2022 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARUGERI CIRCLE, KUDACHI P.S., R/BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. SHAHANAJ MAHAMMAD IMRAN BICCHU AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KUDACHI-591311, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AMIT DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO. 74/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI AS AGAINST PRESENT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 7 ARE CONCERNED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 143, 147, 323, 307, 498(A), 504, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3,4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:873 CRL.P No. 101930 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri B.S. Sangati, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1; and Sri Amit Desai, learned counsel appearing for Sri M.B. Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. The petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) with the following prayer: “Wherefore, petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble court be pleased to: a) quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings in S.C.No.74/2022 pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi as against present petitioners/accused No.2 to 7 are concerned for the alleged offence punishable under Sec. 143, 147, 323, 307, 498(A), 504, 506 R/w Sec. 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 pending on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, in the interest of justice. b) To pass any other order, direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:873 CRL.P No. 101930 of 2022 3. The petition is continued as against the remaining petitioners. Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are arrayed as accused Nos.3 to 7 in S.C.No.74/2022. 4. It is contended that petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are residents of Mumbai and were not residing under the same roof with the complainant and petitioner No.1. Therefore, there is no material to show that they had subjected the complainant to the alleged harassment. To establish the same address proof is provided. 5. In a matter of this nature, it is not uncommon that the relatives of the husband are roped in as accused, perhaps to harass them unnecessarily. 6. Taking note of these aspects of the matter and the material placed on record to show that petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are residents of Mumbai, this Court is of the considered opinion that the pending proceedings insofar as petitioner Nos.2 to 6, who are accused Nos.3 to 7 in S.C. No.74/2022, deserve to be quashed, as the allegation in the charge sheet materials against them are omnibus in the nature and they did not share common roof. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:873 CRL.P No. 101930 of 2022 7. This view of this Court is fortified by the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kahkhashan Kausar @ Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar & Others1. 8. Accordingly, a case is made out to pass following: ORDER i. The petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is concerned is dismissed, in view of the memo placed on record. ii. The petition is allowed insofar as petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, and the pending proceedings in S.C. No.74/2022 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, are hereby quashed against them. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC, CT:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 38 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599