Allowed¶73

Abedabi and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Karnataka HC5 Jun 2025CRL.P/200275/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC, Kalaburagi Bench; CRL.P No.200275/2024; V Srishananda J; decided 05.06.2025. S.482 Cr.P.C. quashing of complaint, FIR and charge-sheet in Crime No.87/2023 (Women PS Kalaburagi), C.C.No.10994/2023, I Addl. JMFC Kalaburagi; IPC 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34. Petitioners are husband's relatives (accused Nos.2-7); allegations general and omnibus, no specific overt acts; Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar (2022) 6 SCC 599 followed; proceedings quashed as futile exercise/abuse of process; no opinion on merits qua accused No.1.

What did the court decide?

Pending proceedings in C.C.No.10994/2023 (Crime No.87/2023) quashed insofar as the petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 7, are concerned; no opinion expressed on merits qua accused No.1. ¶73

Abedabi and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Pending proceedings in C.C.No.10994/2023 (Crime No.87/2023) quashed insofar as the petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 to 7, are concerned; no opinion expressed on merits qua accused No.1.

¶73

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint, FIR and charge-sheet in Crime No.87/2023 (pending as C.C.No.10994/2023) against the petitioners, who are relatives of accused No.1, based on general and omnibus allegations with no specific overt acts, ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶65

Court's answer

The allegations in the complaint and the materials collected by the investigating agency against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, with no specific overt acts alleged against them.

¶65

Ratio / Principle

It is highly unbelievable that, after 15 years of marriage, the relatives of the complainant would still interfere with the day-to-day affairs of the complainant's family.

¶64

Key takeaways

Following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, continuance of the pending proceedings against the petitioners would only result in a futile exercise and abuse of process of law.ratio¶69
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter insofar as accused No.1 is concerned; his liability shall be established before the trial Court in accordance with law.obiter¶74

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. allowed. Complaint, FIR and charge-sheet in Crime No.87/2023 of Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, pending as C.C.No.10994/2023 before I Addl. JMFC, Kalaburagi, for offences under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC, quashed insofar as the petitioners (accused Nos.2 to 7), being relatives of accused No.1 (the husband) residing at Ambalgi village, Kamalapur taluk (Kalaburagi) and Algud, Basavakalyan taluk (Bidar), are concerned. Held: allegations against the petitioners were general and omnibus with no specific overt acts attributed to them; it was highly unbelievable that the husband's relatives would interfere in the marital affairs after 15 years of marriage; following Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599, continuance of proceedings against them would be a futile exercise and abuse of process of law. The Court expressly did not express any opinion on the merits qua accused No.1.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2871 CRL.P No. 200275 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200275 OF 2024

¶9

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

ABEDABI W/O SYED UMAR SAB, AGE:75 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AMBALGI, TQ. KAMALAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.

¶12

KHURSODBI W/O FATRUSAB, AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AMBALGI, TQ. KAMALAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

JAITUNBEE W/O MUSA KHAN, AGE:53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AMBALGI TQ. KAMALAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.

¶15

GORIBE @ SHAHIN W/O ABDUL RAFI, AGE:50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AMBALGI, TQ. KAMALAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI.

¶16

MAINODDIN S/O MADARASAB, AGE:69 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O. ALGUD, TQ. BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR.

¶17

MEHATBA SAB S/O FATRUSAB, AGE:27 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2871 CRL.P No. 200275 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

R/O. AMBALGI, TQ. KAMALAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI.

¶21

…PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN PS, THROUGH REPRESENTED BY, ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585 102.

¶25

NASRIN W/O SYED DASTAGIR, AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/o. NAYA MOHALLA, MIJGURI, KALABURAGI-585 102.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI A.A. GUNNAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶28

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR AND CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.87/2023 OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1^ST ADDL. JMFC AT KALABURAGI IN CC NO.10994/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER OF 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2871 CRL.P No. 200275 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

¶35

Heard Sri. Narendra Bettad, learned counsel for

¶36

Sri. Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned HCGP and Sri. A.A.Gunnapur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

¶37

The present petition is filed under Section 482 of

¶38

Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:

¶39

“Therefore, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the complaint, FIR and Charge Sheet filed by the 1^st respondent registered in Crime No.87/2023 of Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, pending on the file of 1^st Addl. JMFC at Kalaburagi in C.C.No.10994/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the interest of justice and equity.”

¶40

Facts of the case are as under:

¶41

A complaint came to be lodged with the Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, on 05.07.2023 alleging that, the complainant being the wife of Sayyad Dastagiri had the comfortable married life. Their marriage took place on

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2871 CRL.P No. 200275 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

07.02.2005 as per the Muslim rites and customs. The couple had two daughters namely Saniya and Mahajbeen. On account of birth of two female children, there was harassment by the husband and his relatives and the relatives of the husband were in the process of marrying the husband of the complainant for the second time.

¶45

When the matter stood thus, the relatives of the complainant came and pacified the differences and the complainant continued to live in the matrimonial home along with her husband at Kalaburagi. It is the specific allegation made in the complaint that, on 16.06.2023 at about 10.30 a.m., when the complainant demanded to get grocery to the house, there was a quarrel and in that quarrel the husband of the complainant said to have been abused in filthy language and also assaulted her with hands.

¶46

Based on the said complaint, the Women Police registered a case in Crime No.87/2023 and after a thorough investigation, the police have filed charge-sheet against the husband of the complainant and others for the offences

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2871 CRL.P No. 200275 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶50

Thereafter, the police investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet. The learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and the matter is now being adjudicated in C.C.No.10994/2023 on the file of I Additional J.M.F.C., at Kalaburagi.

¶51

The petitioners being the relatives of the husband of the complainant have approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer by contending that, the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are residents of Ambalga village, Kamalapur taluka, Kalaburagi district, and petitioner No.5 is resident of Algud, Basavakalyan taluka, with their respective families and they are leading their life independently and they are in no way connected with the affairs of the complainant and her husband, whose house is situated in Naya Mohalla at Kalaburagi.

¶52

It is also contended that, after the marriage two

¶53

children are born and on account of some minor differences,

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2871 CRL.P No. 200275 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

there are frequent quarrels between the complainant and her husband for which, the present petitioners are in no way responsible and they have not interfered with the private life of the complainant along with accused No.1 and therefore, they sought for quashing of the pending criminal proceedings as against the petitioners herein are concerned.

¶57

Per contra, learned HCGP and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would contend that, the investigating agency has collected the material against the present petitioners also, which would be sufficient enough to proceed with the criminal case as against the petitioners as well.

¶58

They also contend that, this Court having regard

¶59

to the scope of the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot hold a mini trial to find out the veracity of the materials collected by the investigating agency and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶60

Having heard the counsels for both sides, this

¶61

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2871 CRL.P No. 200275 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

On such meticulous perusal of the records, it is found that, admittedly the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are residents of Ambalgi village, and accused No.5 is residing in Algud, Basavakalyan taluk, Bidar district. It is highly unbelievable that, after 15 years of the marriage, the relatives of the complainant would still interfere with the day to day affairs of the complainant family.

¶65

The allegations in the complaint as well as the other materials collected by the investigating agency are general and omni bus in nature with no specific overt acts being alleged against the petitioners herein are concerned.

¶66

Under these circumstances, by following the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, this Court is of the considered opinion that, the pending proceedings against the present petitioners who are admittedly the residents of Ambalgi village, Kamalapur taluka and accused No.6 being the resident of Algud,

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2871 CRL.P No. 200275 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

Basavakalyan taluk, Bidar district, in the considered opinion of this Court would only result in futile exercise and also abuse of process of law.

¶70

Accordingly, a case is made out to quash the pending proceedings insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Accordingly, the following order:

¶71

ORDER

¶72

(i) The petition is allowed;

¶73

(ii) Pending proceeding as against the present petitioners who are accused Nos.2 to 7, is hereby quashed;

¶74

(iii) It is made clear that, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter, insofar as the accused No.1 is concerned, which shall be established before the Court, in accordance with law.

¶75

SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 CT:PK

Abedabi and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abedabi and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

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

Machendar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mallappa S/O Devappa Vagangera Vs the State of Karnataka

Ajju @ Ajim @ MD Azaroddin Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohd Osman and Ors. Vs the Director General of Police and Ors.

Pandurang Vs the State of Karnataka

MD Furqan Ahemad Vs the State through