- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2079 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102576 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. IRSHADAHEMED GAIBUSAB SANADI AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. TAILOR, R/O. HOUSE NO. 2398, KONNUR, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SHAJADBI GAIBUSAB SANADI AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. HOUSE NO. 2398, KONNUR, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. YASIN GAIBUSAB SANADI AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER R/O. HOUSE NO. 2398, KONNUR, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. BIBIAISHA GAIBUSAB SANADI AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HOUSE NO. 2398, KONNUR, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. FARZAN GAIBUSAB SANADI AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD R/O. HOUSE NO. 2398, KONNUR, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH WOMEN P.S. BELAGAVI. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.18 13:04:10 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2079 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2022 2. SAMEENA IRSHADAHAMMED SANADI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. NO. 250, SIDDESHWAR NAGAR, KANABARGI, DIST. BELAGAVI …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MOHAMMAD SHARIF, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Z.M. HATTARKI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO PASS AN ORDER TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5, IN CC NO.43/2021, ON THE FILE OF II-JMFC COURT, BELAGAVI, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, ARISING OUT OF P.C. NO.34/2019, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. Mahantesh Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and the learned counsel Sri. Mohammad Sharif appearing on behalf of Sri. Z. M. Hattarki, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2079 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2022 3. Placing the memo on record, the petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is dismissed. 4. Petitioner No.2 is no more. As such, the petition insofar as petitioner No.2 is dismissed as abated. 5. Insofar as petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are concerned, they are the relatives of petitioner No.1, having separate residence at Konnur, Gokak Taluk, which is about 20 kilometers away from where the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 lived together as husband and wife. 6. On account of strained matrimonial relationship, respondent No.2 is living away from the matrimonial home and she has filed a divorce petition. She has also filed the present complaint under Section 498A and other offences, which has been investigated and charge sheet came to be filed. 7. Contentions of petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are that they had no role whatsoever in the alleged ill-treatment imparted to respondent No.2 and they did not share the common roof with respondent No.2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2079 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2022 8. They also contended that they are having separate residence and living with their respective family members at Konnur which is about 20 kilometers away from the place of residence where the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 last resided. Therefore, pending proceedings against them needs to be quashed. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that respondent No.2 is ready to join the matrimonial home and therefore, necessary orders be passed. 10. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State would however contend that there are allegations against petitioner Nos.3 to 5 as well in the charge sheet materials and therefore, the petition needs to be dismissed. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that petitioner Nos.3 to 5 did not share the common - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2079 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2022 roof along with petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 at Gokak. 13. Admittedly, petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are residing separately at Konnur which is about 20 kilometers away from where the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 last resided. Moreover, the allegations against the petitioners are omnibus in nature without any specific details. 14. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kehkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others1, the pending proceedings insofar as petitioner Nos.3 to 5 need to be quashed. 15. Further, if respondent No.2 is interested in amicable settlement with petitioner No.1, they may make necessary application to refer the matter to the mediation in the pending divorce petition. 16. With that liberty to the respondent No.2, the following: 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2079 CRL.P No. 102576 of 2022 ORDER (i) Placing the memo on record, petition insofar as petitioner No.1 is dismissed. (ii) Petition insofar as petitioner No.2 is dismissed as abated. (iii) Petition insofar as petitioner Nos.3 to 5 is allowed. (iv) Consequently, pending proceedings in C.C. No.43/2021 on the file of JMFC II Court at Belagavi, is hereby quashed insofar as petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are concerned. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM/Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 3