Rajabi Bashasab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶6

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101936 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAJABI BASHASAB NADAF, W/O. BASHASAB, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE MAKER, R/O. #200, MICRO STATION, MARAGOA, VASCO, SOUTH GOA, GOA-403802.

¶10

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench

¶11

BASHASAB BABUSAB NADAF, S/O. BABUSAB, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. #200, MICRO STATION, MARAGOA, VASCO, SOUTH GOA, GOA-403802.

¶12

MARDANABI AJJUSAB NADAF, W/O. AJJUSAB, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE MAKER, R/O. MADAPUR, TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI, KARNATAKA-581126.

¶13

AJJUSAB NADAF S/O. KHADERSAB, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. MADAPUR, TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI, KARNATAKA-581126.

¶14

MEHABOOBI SAHIL SHAH W/O. SAHIL,

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶16

2 -

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE MAKER, R/O. 27-11-1518, BALAJI NAGAR, NELLORE, TQ. DIST. NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH-584002.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY KUMARI KAVITA RATHOD, ADV. FOR SRI. SANKET SHANKRAPPA AMBALI, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WOMEN P. S. HUBBALLI, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD.

¶23

RESHMA W/O. RAMJANSAB NADAF, OCC: PRIVATE BUSINESS, AGE: 35 YEARS, SUBANI NAGAR, SAI NAGAR ROAD, HOUSE NO.48, UNAKAL, HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA-580031.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR, CHARGESHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 6 IN C.C.NO.10102/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W. 149 OF IPC, 1860 AND ETC.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶33

Heard Kumari.Kavita Rathod, learned counsel for Sri.Sanket Shankrappa Ambali, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri.Abhishek Mallipatil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri.Roshank Saheb Chabbi, learned counsel for respondent No.2

¶34

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per their status before the trial Court. Petitioners herein are accused Nos.2 to 6 and respondent No.2 is the de - facto complainant.

¶35

Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as

¶36

under:

¶37

The marriage of accused No.1 with the de - facto complainant was solemnized on 18.12.2008. Soon after the marriage, their relationship was cordial for a couple of years. Thereafter, all the petitioners and accused No.1 started to harass the de - facto complainant in connection with demand

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

of dowry and they were insulted the de - facto complainant without providing proper food, thus, they evicted her from matrimonial house.

¶41

On 25.08.2019 at about 8.30 p.m., all the accused persons took quarrel with her, abused her in filthy language and intentional insulted her to provoke her breach of peach and made criminal intimidation to eliminate her and voluntarily caused hurt to the de - facto complainant. Hence, thereby, they evicted her from matrimonial house and on 05.11.2020 at about 8.00 p.m., all the accused persons came to the house of the de - facto complainant, made criminal intimidation to eliminate her, if she did not give Talaq to accused No.1. Thereby, abused her in filthy language. Hence she lodged a complaint. On the basis of the complaint, respondent police, registered the case and took up the investigation and after completion of the investigation filed charge sheet in C.C.No.10102/2021 before the Trial

¶42

Court.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Being aggrieved by initiation of proceedings in C.C.No.10102/2021, these petitioners being accused Nos.2 to 6 have filed this petition praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated against them.

¶46

It is contended that, petitioners are innocent of the alleged offences, they have been falsely implicated in the crime and the allegations made in the complaint are vague and omnibus in nature, in view of there being no specific allegations against the accused persons. The incident occurred on 25.08.2019 and 05.11.2020. However, the de - facto complainant lodged her complaint on 09.08.2021. Hence, there is a delay of 9 months in lodging the complaint. In fact, these petitioners are not involved in the alleged offences. Hence, she prayed to quash the proceedings.

¶47

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that, petitioners are involved in the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. There are prima facie materials

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

against these petitioners, therefore, at this stage the proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶51

I have perusal of material available on record. It appears that, the learned Magistrate on perusal of charge sheet materials took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued process.

¶52

As per charge-sheet material, the de - facto complainant made allegations that, these petitioners were harassing her in connection with demand of dowry and they were abused her in filthy language and made criminal intimidation to eliminate her, if she does not give Talaq to accused No.1. Thereby, these petitioners evicted de - facto complainant from the matrimonial house in the year 2019 itself.

¶53

It is the case of the de - facto complainant that in the year 2020 again, all the accused persons, came to her house and took quarrel with her and abused her in filthy language and made criminal intimidation to eliminate her and voluntarily caused hurt.

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

Admittedly, the first information was lodged after

¶57

2 years from the date, on which, the complainant was thrown out from the matrimonial house. The last incident was occurred on 05.11.2020. However after lapse of 9 months the de facto complainant lodged a complaint. Except general and omnibus allegations, there is no specific allegation made against these petitioners, as to how and in what manner they subjected de facto complainant to cruelty both physically and mentally and also demanded to bring dowry from her parental house.

¶58

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao¹ at paragraph No.30, has held as follows:

¶59

"Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured

¶60

1 (2008) 15 SCC 582

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained."

¶64

Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶65

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State Of Bihar² at

¶66

Paragraph 18, has held as follows:

¶67

"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them."

¶68

In the absence of any material that accused Nos.2 to 6 have subjected the complainant to cruelty both

¶69

2 (2022) 6 SCC 599

¶70

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

physically and mentally and also that there was demanding to bring dowry from her parental home, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate insofar as Section 498(A) is not tenable.

¶73

Further, the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are also not established. In fact, the prosecution has to show that accused persons have intentionally insulted the de-facto complainant, so as to give her provocation, intending or knowing that such provocation will cause her break the public peace or to commit any other offences. Thus, mere act of insulting a person would not satisfy the ingredients of Section 504 of IPC.

¶74

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Another,³ at Paragraph Nos.13 and 14, has held as under:

¶75

"13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following ingredients, viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and (c) the accused must intend or know that such

¶76

3 AIR (2014) SC 2013

¶77

10 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

provocation would cause another to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any other person and such provocation will cause to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One of the essential elements constituting the offence is that there should have been an act or conduct amounting to intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.

¶81

14. We may also indicate that it is not the law that the actual words or language should figure in the complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and, by doing so, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion, prima facie, that there has been an intentional insult so as to provoke any person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not the law that a complainant should verbatim reproduce each word or words capable of provoking the other person to commit any other offence. The background facts, circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they are used, the person or persons to whom they are addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be

¶82

11 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC."

¶86

So far as Section 506 of IPC is concerned, in

¶87

order to satisfy the ingredients of offence of criminal intimidation, there has to be threat of injury to a person, reputation or property of the complainant by the accused, which should be the intention to cause harm to that person or to cause that person to do any act, which is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of such threat. In the case of Manik Taneja & Another Vs. State Of Karnataka & Another⁴ the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to examine the ingredients of Section 506 of IPC, wherein the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court is as under:

¶88

"The legal position is well-settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish the offence. It is also for the Court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to

¶89

4 (2015) Part 7 SCC 423

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, the chances of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the Court may quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

¶94

So far as the Section 323 of IPC is concerned, though the de facto complainant has made out the allegations against the petitioners, neither the complainant nor the Investigating Officer has furnished Wound Certificate to show that these petitioners have voluntarily caused bodily injury to the complainant.

¶95

In the instant case as discussed herein above and material on record coupled with the allegation made in the complaint, the complainant does not establish the offences under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 and 323 of IPC against these petitioners.

¶96

In view of the above analysis, the continuation of criminal proceedings against these petitioners i.e., accused Nos.2 to 6, will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶97

13 -

¶98

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115 CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

ORDER

¶101

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶102

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.10102/2021 on the of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC, insofar as it relates to the petitioners (Accused Nos.2 to 6) are concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶103

In view of the disposal of the petition, pending applications, if any, do not survive for consideration, accordingly stand disposed of.

¶104

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T)

¶105

JUDGE

¶106

AC /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Rajabi Bashasab Nadaf v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajabi Bashasab Nadaf v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Alias Uadagatti Prakasha S/O. Eshwarappa Vs State of Karnataka

Noorsab S/O Aminsab Noorappanavar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Malleshnaik D.H. Vs the State of Karnataka

Nitin S/O Suresh Hulwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Shivanand Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Annapurna W/O. Puttappa Aski Vs the State of Karnataka