Mahiboob Vs the State of Karnataka

SAHAJAN BEGUM @ SHAHID BEGUM W/O MOHAMMED, AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. #997, 5^TH CROSS, NEAR ABDUL MASJID, R.K. HEGADE NAGAR, DR. SHIVARAM KARANT NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 077.

¶14

NUSRAT JAHA W/O MAHIBUB KHAN, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. WARD NO.3, JANDA KATTA, KURDI VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584 115.

¶15

… PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5080 CRL.P No. 200365 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH, (THROUGH MANVI P.S., DIST. RAICHUR-584 115).

¶21

SMT. HUSSAIN BEE W/O SIRAJ PASH, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. KURDI VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584 115, NOW RESIDING AT: NAMAZGERA GUDDA, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584 115.

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(NOTICE SERVED TO R2)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C (OLD) UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 29.01.2025 AND FURTHER CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.30/2025 (CRIME NO.295/2024) REGISTERED BY THE MANVI P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 85, 115(2), 352, 351 R/W 190 OF BNS 2023 WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT: MANVI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5080 CRL.P No. 200365 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶31

Accused Nos.2 to 6 are before this Court under

¶32

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.30 of 2025 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Manvi arising out of Crime No.295 of 2024 registered by Manvi Police Station, Raichur district, for offences punishable under Section 85, 115(2), 352, 351 read with Section 190 of BNS 2523.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶35

the petitioners herein are the in-laws of respondent No.2. Marriage of the accused No.1 with respondent No.2 had taken place on 25.04.2019. Allegations found against the petitioners relate to the period when accused No.1 and respondent No.2 were residing separately. Even according to the respondent No.2, she had deserted her husband and was living separately since the last 2 years. In the alleged incident that had taken place on 07.12.2024,

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5080 CRL.P No. 200365 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

allegation is only as against accused No.1, who is not before this Court. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

¶40

Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the

¶41

petition. Respondent No.2 who is served in the matter has remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶42

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was performed on 25.04.2019 and from the said wedlock, they have 2 children. It is alleged in the first information that for a period of about 2 years, accused No.1 and respondent No.2 had stayed together and lived as husband and wife. It is further alleged that accused Nos.2 to 6 who are the relatives of accused No.1 were ill-treating the respondent No.2 while she was in the matrimonial house. It is also alleged that they were threatening of performing the second marriage of accused No.1 with some other lady. Unable to bear the torture meted out by

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5080 CRL.P No. 200365 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

the accused persons, respondent No.2 had left her matrimonial house and for the last 2 years prior to registration of FIR, she had taken shelter in her maternal aunt's house at Manvi town.

¶46

She has further alleged that on 07.12.2024, when she was along with CW4 to CW6 at Manvi town, accused No.1 came there and after abusing her, using filthy language, allegedly assaulted her. When CW4 tried to intervene, accused No.1 allegedly abused even CW4 and thereafter CW5 and CW6 had intervened and rescued the first informant from accused No.1. In respect of the alleged incident that had taken place on 07.12.2024, allegation is found in the first information as well as in the charge sheet, only as against accused No.1. So far as the petitioners herein are concerned, omnibus allegations are found against them, which relate to the period when the first informant was staying with accused No.1, which is about 2 years prior to she approaching the police and submitting the first information in the present case.

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5080 CRL.P No. 200365 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PREETI GUPTA & ANOTHER VS STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANOTHER reported in (2010)7 SCC 667 , has held in paragraphs 32 to 35 as under:

¶51

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern.

¶52

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of 11 Crl.P.No.1225/2021 small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

¶53

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5080 CRL.P No. 200365 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

¶58

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.”

¶59

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

¶60

of TARBEZ KHAN ALIAS GUDDU & OTHERS VS STATE OF UTTAR 13 Crl.P.No.1225/2021 PRADESH & ANOTHER reported in (2019)4 SCC 615 and in the case of SEENIVASAN VS THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE reported in (2019)8 SCC 642 , has observed that the registration of criminal cases against the near relatives of the husband without there being specific allegations and overtact is bad in law.

¶61

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:5080 CRL.P No. 200365 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

In the case on hand, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are

¶64

the parents of the accused No.1 and petitioner No.3 is the brother of accused No.1. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the married sisters of accused No.1, who are residing separately. There are no specific allegations as against any one of the petitioners herein either in the first information or in the charge sheet, which is now filed against them. It appears that only for the reason that the petitioners are close relatives of accused No.1, who is the husband of the respondent No.2, they have been arrayed as accused in the impugned criminal proceedings with an intention to harass and coerce them and therefore continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings as against them amounts to abuse of process of law. Under the circumstances, the following:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶67

ii. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.30 of 2025 pending before the Court of Civil Judge and

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC-K:5080 CRL.P No. 200365 of 2025

¶69

9 -

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

JMFC, Manvi arising out of Crime No.295 of 2024 registered by Manvi Police Station, Raichur district, for offences punishable under Section 85, 115(2), 352, 351 read with Section 190 of BNS 2523 as against the petitioners herein is quashed.

¶72

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶73

JUDGE

¶74

KGK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 12

Mahiboob v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahiboob 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

Mr. Aditya S/O Nagesh Banavalikar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mansur S/O Husen Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

E a Charanraj S/O. E a Allappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Newton Manilal Parmar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mubeen Akhter Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Sri. Siddappa Buthali Vatasa Vs the State of Karnataka