- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103155 OF 2023 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ARBAZ S/O INAYATULLA BAGWAN AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. GARAGE WORKER, R/O. SUTAR MALLA GALLI, NO 2 NEERMAY HOSPITAL, ICHALKARANJI, TQ. HATKANANGLE, DIST. KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA-416115. 2. INAYATULLA S/O RASHEED BAGWAN AGE 50 YEARS, OCC. CASUAL R/O. SUTAR MALLA GALLI NO. 2 NEERMAY HOSPITAL ICHALKARANJI, TQ. HATKANANGLE DIST. KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA-416115. 3. YASMEEN W/O INAYATULLA BAGWAN AGE 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O. SUTAR MALLA GALLI, NO.2 NEERMAY HOSPITAL ICHALKARANJI, TQ. HATKANANGLE DIST. KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA-416115. 4. AYESHA W/O JUBER BAGWAN AGE 21 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O. SUTAR MALLA GALLI, NO. 2 NEERMAY HOSPITAL, ICHALKARANJI, TQ. HATKANANGLE, DIST. KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA-416115. 5. MAHAMMAD S/O INAYATULLA BAGWAN AGE 22 YEARS, OCC. DAILY WAGE WORKER R/O. SUTAR MALLA GALLI, NO.2 NEERMAY HOSPITAL, ICHALKARANJI, TQ. HATKANANGLE, DIST. KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA-416115. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023 6. UMAR S/O INAYATULLA BAGWAN AGE 20 YEARS, OCC. DAILY WAGE WORKER R/O. SUTAR MALLA GALLI, NO.2 NEERMAY HOSPITAL, ICHALKARANJI TQ. HATKANANGLE, DIST. KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA-416115. 7. ANIS MALADAR AGE 34 YEARS, OCC. CASUAL WORKER R/O. SUTAR MALLA GALLI NO.2 NEERMAY HOSPITAL, ICHALKARANJI TQ. HATKANANGLE, DIST. KOLHAPUR, STATE MAHARASHTRA-416115. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUBBALLI-DHARWAD CITY WOMEN P.S. REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. 580011. 2. SHAHZADBI W/O ARBAZ BAGWAN AGE 22 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE R/O. MANTOOR ROAD NEAR FISH MARKET TQ HUBBALLI, DIST DHARWAD-591115. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED ON 01.03.2023 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 7 BY THE HUBLI- DHARWAD WOMEN PS, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 498(A), 323, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, IN CRIME NO.15/2023 THE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI IN CC NO. 7419/2023, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri Vadiraj P. Vadavi, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1; and Sri Lingesh Kattemane, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’), seeking the following prayer: “WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the FIR registered on 01.03.2023 as against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 7 by the Hubli-Dharwad Women PS, for the alleged offences p/u/s 498(a), 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and u/s 3 and 4 of dowry prohibition act, in crime No.15/2023 the charge sheet and entire proceedings pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi in CC No.7419/2023, in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. Pursuant to the complaint lodged by respondent No.2, with the Woman Police Station, Hubbali-Dharwad, registered a case in Crime No.15/2023 for the offences - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023 punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 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’). 4. The gist of the averments in the complaint reveals that respondent No.2 was married to petitioner No.1 on 11.01.2021. Petitioner No.1 was running an automobile garage. At the time of marriage, as per the demand made by the petitioners, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, gold ornaments weighing two tolas, and household articles were given as dowry, and the marriage was performed according to the wishes of the petitioners. 5. For about six months, after the marriage, respondent No.2 led a comfortable marital life with petitioner No.1 in the matrimonial home. Thereafter, the mother of petitioner No.1, the father-in-law of respondent No.2, and the other petitioners allegedly began ill-treating her by subjecting her to physical and mental harassment. Petitioner No.1 is stated to have physically assaulted - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023 respondent No.2 at the instance of the other petitioners. Respondent No.2 has specifically narrated the manner in which she was subjected to such harassment and has alleged a further demand for additional dowry of Rs.1,00,000/-. 6. It is further stated that when respondent No.2 was two months pregnant, she was sent back to her parental home and was not thereafter taken back to the matrimonial home. Even after the delivery of the child, none of the petitioners visited her or made any efforts to take her back to the matrimonial home. Respondent No.2 gave birth to a female child. As the petitioners failed to take her back, she is presently residing with her aged mother. 7. It is further alleged in the complaint that the other petitioners were making efforts to contract a second marriage for petitioner No.1. A Panchayat was convened in this regard, wherein the members of the Jamaat advised the petitioners to take respondent No.2 back to the matrimonial home. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023 8. However, the petitioners failed to comply with the said advice. Consequently, respondent No.2 visited Hubballi and lodged the complaint. 9. It is further contended in the complaint that on 27.02.2023, during conciliation proceedings held at the police station, the petitioners allegedly stated before the police that they would “set right the matter in court.” On the same day, when respondent No.2 was returning home at about 8.00 p.m. near the fish market on Mantoor Road, she was allegedly physically assaulted by the petitioners, who also threatened her with the action of divorce. 10. Based on the complaint, the police registered a case in Crime No.15/2023, conducted the investigation, and filed a charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. The learned Trial Magistrate, after verifying the charge sheet materials, took cognizance of the said offences and proceeded with the criminal case. 11. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are before this Court on the following grounds: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023  “The respondent No. 1 filed a false and frivolous petition under the act as against the petitioners. The petitioners have not at all committed the offences as alleged by the Respondent No.2. Hence, the respondent could not have take the shelter under the Act.  It is submitted that the allegations of the respondent No. 2 that the petitioners along with his family members forced her to bring dowry is baseless and without any material evidence. Infact, the first respondent, without there being any reasons failed to return to the husband's house after the delivery of the child.  That by summoning innocent person to appear before the court to face criminal trial amounts to abuse of process of law. Looking to the complaint, FIR & Charge sheet with the entire allegations are totally false and frivolous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence the FIR and complaint in Crime No. 15/2023 are liable to be quashed.  That, the Court below ought to have seen that, there is no prima facie case has been made out by the Police in the charge sheet against the petitioner. And ought to have seen that, the charge sheet has been filed on the ill motive of the complainant etc. and ought to have reject the said charge sheet and discharge the accused/petitioner.  That, on going through the entire charge sheet it is seen that, on ill will of the authority motivation the Police have created a false story against the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023 petitioner. Hence, the said charge sheet and further proceedings against this petitioner before the Lower Court is liable to be quashed.  That, the Respondent No.2 filed a false arid frivolous complaint against the Petitioners only inorder to harass the petitioner No.1 and his family as well as his friends.  That, the alleged Incident has taken place on 27/02/2023 and the complaint has been made on 01/03/2023 and there is an unexplained delay and the same needs to be taken into consideration the FIR and the chargesheet needs to be quashed in the interest of justice.  That, the complainant had not made any efforts to say in the compliant about when the alleged Incident of harassment has happened and who all were indulged in the such harassment and how the petitioner No. 1 to 7 have role to play in such alleged incident. And it is also needs to be looked into that after she went to her parental home how the harassment was made on her.  That, on perusal of the entire documents on record, it did not disclose commission of offence and there is no specific and distinct allegations made against each of the petitioners and the petitioners have not committed any offences as alleged in the complaint, the entire allegations made in the compliant are general and omnibus, and implicating the entire family members in this false case and make them to face the criminal trial on bald allegations is abuse of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023 process of law. Hence the impugned proceedings and FIR complaint along with the Chargesheet in Crime No. 4/ 2023 and C.C. No.577/2023 initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.  That viewed from any angle, the registration of Crime no. 15/2023 by the Hubli Dharwad City Woman PS, Dharwad, dated 01/03/2023 and the chargesheet filed for the offences punishable under section 498(a), 323, 504, R/w 34 of IPC and section 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act pending on the file of Learned Prl. Civil Judge, & JMFC, Hubballi in CC No. 7419/2023 against the petitioners in not sustainable.” 12. Sri Vadiraj P. Vadavi, learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contended that there is no truth in any of the allegations made in the complaint and that a false complaint has been foisted against the petitioners solely with an intention to harass them. He accordingly sought for allowing the petition and for quashing the pending proceedings. 13. Per contra, Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023 Lingesh Kattamane, learned counsel for respondent No.2, supported the order taking cognizance. 14. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has meticulously perused the material available on record. Upon such perusal, it is crystal clear that petitioner No.1 married respondent No.2 on 11.01.2021. According to the complaint, respondent No.2 lived happily in the matrimonial home only for a period of six months, and when she was two months pregnant, she was sent to her parental home and was not taken back thereafter. 15. It is also on record that in the maintenance proceedings initiated by respondent No.2, an order granting maintenance has been passed, which has not been complied with by petitioner No.1. 16. Prima facie perusal of the charge-sheet materials discloses the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences in the form of oral testimonies of the charge-sheet witnesses, spot mahazar, and other allied materials. It is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023 not the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 is presently residing with them. 17. What prevented petitioner No.1 and the other petitioners from calling respondent No.2 back and enabling petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 to lead a cordial matrimonial life is not forthcoming from the material on record. 18. Pertinently, there are specific allegations regarding the demand of dowry and additional dowry to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. In this regard, it is alleged that all the petitioners acted in concert and subjected respondent No.2 to physical and mental harassment, as is evident from the charge-sheet materials. 19. Taking note of these aspects, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., to quash the pending criminal proceedings. 20. However, on noticing the fact that accused No.7 is only a friend of accused No.1, he cannot be held liable for - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:701 CRL.P No. 103155 of 2023 the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. There are no specific overt acts attributed to him in respect of the other alleged offences as well. 21. Accordingly, a case is made out for quashing the pending proceedings insofar as accused No.7 is concerned in C.C. No.7419/2023. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed in part. ii. The petition insofar as petitioner Nos.1 to 6 is concerned is dismissed. iii. The petition insofar as petitioner No.7 (accused No.7) is concerned is allowed, and the criminal proceedings pending in C.C. No.7419/2023 against petitioner No.7 (accused No.7) are hereby quashed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU/LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 18