- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1750 CRL.P No. 102164 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102164 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ASMA SAMEER W/O SAMEER NANDGADKAR AGE 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MUSLIM NINGAPURGALLI STATION ROAD, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI-591302. 2. SAMEER NANDGADKAR S/O SARFUDDIN AGE 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MUSLIM NINGAPURGALLI STATION ROAD, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI-591302. 3. WASIM NANDGADKAR S/O SARFUDDIN AGE 41 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MUSLIM NINGAPURGALLI STATION ROAD, KHANAPUR, BELAGAVI-591302. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. L.S. SULLAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SI OF BELAGAVI WOMEN’S CITY STATION REP. BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. 2. RAFIYA W/O ROSHAN JAMEER BIJAPUR AGE 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MEHBOOB MULLA, EWS 208 ASHOKNAGAR, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S.H. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.12 16:10:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1750 CRL.P No. 102164 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S. 528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO QUASH FIR AND COMPLAINT IN BELAGAVI CITY WOMEN’S POLICE STATION CRIME NO.65/2024 ALLEGING U/S 85, 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) OF BNS ACT 2023, ON THE FILE OF JMFC II COURT BELAGAVI, IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.6 TO 8, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri L.S.Sullad, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri S.H.Yadawad, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Petition under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer. “To quash FIR and complaint in Belagavi City Women’s Police Station Crime No.65/2024 alleging u/s 85, 115(2), 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS Act 2023, on the file of JMFC II Court Belagavi, in respect of petitioners/accused No.6 to 8.” 3. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1750 CRL.P No. 102164 of 2025 3.1 A private complaint came to be filed by the second respondent, which was registered as P.C.No.84/2024 to II Additional JMFC, Belagavi. 3.2 The contents of the private complaint reveal that the second respondent was married to accused No.1 namely Roshan Jameel as per the Muslim Rites and Customs on 30.11.2019 in Welcome Function Hall, Auto Nagar Cross, Renuka Nagar, Belagavi. 3.3 After the marriage, second respondent joined the matrimonial home and led a happy married life. A child was born in the wedlock. Thereafter, differences arose and according to complaint averments, her husband did not want to live with the complainant and therefore, forced her for the divorce. 3.4 In that regard, present petitioners and other accused persons were called the father of the complainant to a private hotel and forced that the second respondent should execute a kullanama (divorce). The same was refused by the father of the complainant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1750 CRL.P No. 102164 of 2025 3.5 Thereafter, again in the police station in the guise of settlement, present petitioners and other accused persons demanded for the execution of the kullanama and there were filthy words uttered by the present petitioners also along with accused persons and physical assault. 4. It is further contention of the second respondent that the police failed to register the case and therefore, she was constrained to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate for taking action. 5. Learned trial Magistrate after receipt of the private complaint, referred the matter for investigation to the jurisdictional police whereby a case came to be registered in Crime No.65/2024 by the Women Police, Belagavi on 23.12.2024. According to the said FIR itself, incident has occurred on 10.03.2021 till 23.12.2024. The police officers after registering the case investigating the matter. 6. In the meantime, petitioners have approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1750 CRL.P No. 102164 of 2025 7. Sri L.S.Sullad, learned counsel would contend that the present petitioners are falsely implicated in the present FIR by way of a private complaint inasmuch as they are not residents of Belagavi and they are permanently residing in Khanapur and they had no nexus whatsoever with the alleged incident and sought for allowing the petition. 8. Per contra, Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the police after thorough investigation noted that present petitioners were also involved in the incident and therefore, sought for dismissing the petition. 9. Sri S.H.Yadawad, learned counsel for respondent No.2 adopting the arguments put forth on behalf of learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that prima facie materials are collected by the investigation agency after thorough investigation to rope in and present petitioners also as accused persons and material collected in the form of charge sheet makes out a direct nexus between the incident and the present petitioners and sought for dismissal of the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1750 CRL.P No. 102164 of 2025 10. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 11. On such perusal of the material on record, it would depict that the present petitioners are permanent residents of Khanapur. 12. As per the charge sheet material, present petitioners were also present and they also threatened and forced the father of the complainant in a private hotel. To establish the said incident, there is no material evidence on record except the statement of the charge sheet witnesses. 13. Investigation Officer has not collected the call records of the mobile telephones of the present petitioners to a prima facie established that they were present in the said hotel on the day of incident. 14. Insofar as the second incident is concerned, there is no police constable or any other police personnel who have been examined to establish that the present petitioners were also present in the police station and they also threatened and abused the complainant party. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1750 CRL.P No. 102164 of 2025 15. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners are the permanent residents of Khanapur and their presence in both the incidents are doubtful, applying the principles of law enunciated in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and tohers reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out a case for quashing the pending proceedings as against them. 16. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. Pending proceedings in Crime No.65/2024 on the file of JMFC II Court Belagavi is hereby quashed insofar as the present petitioners are concerned. iii. It is made clear that quashing of the proceedings in respect of the present petitioners shall not affect the rights of the second respondent insofar as the other accused persons are concerned. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CLK_Ct-cmu