Allowed¶44

Sri Abdul Salam v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2025CRL.P/513/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of 498A/dowry proceedings against distant relative; omnibus allegations held insufficient where specific allegations exist only against husband and in-law accused Nos.1 and 2; Kahkashan Kausar (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141) relied upon; abuse of process; Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 BNSS; C.C.No.5/2022; Crime No.125/2021; Women Police Station, Chikkaballapura; High Court of Karnataka, CRL.P No. 513 of 2025, decided 07-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.5/2022 against the petitioner-accused No.11, pending before the Prl. Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur, arising out of Crime No.125/2021 of Women Police Station, Chikkaballapura. ¶44

Sri Abdul Salam Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.5/2022 against the petitioner-accused No.11, a far relative of accused Nos.1 and 2 against whom only omnibus allegations are made, are liable to be quashed.

¶37

Court's answer

The allegations made against the petitioner-accused No.11 are omnibus in nature; specific allegations are made only against accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is a far relative who was not residing in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and no specific allegations are made against him; therefore, continuation of the criminal proceedings against him would be an abuse of process of law and the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) by accused No.11 seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.5/2022 (Crime No.125/2021, Women Police Station, Chikkaballapura), pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapura, for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Prosecution case: the complainant married accused No.1 on 29.06.2020; Rs.2 lakhs was allegedly given as dowry at the time of marriage, with subsequent demands and physical and mental threats. The Court noted it had already quashed the proceedings against accused Nos.3 to 10 (brothers and sisters residing separately from accused Nos.1 and 2) by relying on Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141. The petitioner, a far relative of accused Nos.1 and 2, resided at Bagepalli, away from their house; the allegations against him were omnibus, with specific allegations only against accused Nos.1 and 2. Continuation of proceedings against him would be an abuse of process of law. Petition allowed; criminal proceedings against petitioner-accused No.11 quashed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5703 CRL.P No. 513 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 513 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI ABDUL SALAM, S/O LATE HAYAT KHAN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.09, JAMEEYA MASEEDI, NEAR BAGEPALLI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.

¶10

AND ALSO BEHIND KEB OFFICE 22^ND WARD, BAGEPALLI TOWN AND TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA -561 207.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, STATION HOUSE OFICER, BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 561 207. REPRESENTED BY HIS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

SMT. AMREEN TAJ W/O SRI. RIYAZ AHMED, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDINT AT NO. 26/42, GANGANMIDDE ROAD, 7^TH WARD, CHIKKABALLAPURA -562 104.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1, R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:5703 CRL.P No. 513 of 2025

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.05/2022 (IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.125/2021) OF WOMEN POLICE STATION, CHIKKABALLAPURA, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE PRL., SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPURA.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.11 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS), for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.5/2022, pending on the file of Prl.Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballaur, arising out of Crime No.125/2021, registered by Women Police Station, Chikkaballapura and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections

¶26

498A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶27

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

¶28

petitioner and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶29

Respondent No.2 is served, but unrepresented.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5703 CRL.P No. 513 of 2025

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2, the police registered the FIR and also filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. It is alleged that complainant married to accused No.1 on 29.06.2020. At the time of marriage, Rs.2 lakhs was given as dowry by way of cash, golden ring, chain, watch etc., apart from household articles. After the marriage, the accused persons also demanded additional dowry and threatened her physically and mentally. Hence, she filed a complaint. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet, which is under challenge.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner-accused No.11 is the relative of accused Nos.1 and 2. This Court has already quashed the criminal proceedings as against accused Nos.3 to 10. As the petitioner is far relative of accused No.1, he has never stayed in the house of accused No.1 and quarreled with

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:5703 CRL.P No. 513 of 2025

¶35

the complainant. Hence, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.

¶36

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State objected the petition.

¶37

Having heard the arguments and perusing the materials placed on record, this Court has already quashed the criminal proceedings as against accused Nos.3 to 10, who are brothers and sisters and are residing separately from accused Nos.1 and 2. This petitioner is said to be the relative of accused Nos.1 and 2 and he is also stated to be staying in Bagepalli, which is far away from the house of accused Nos.1 and 2. The allegation made against this petitioner is an omni bus statement, but there are specific allegations made against accused Nos.1 and 2. By relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶38

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others -vs- State of

¶39

Bihar and others, reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141, this Court quashed the proceedings as against accused

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5703 CRL.P No. 513 of 2025

¶41

Nos.3 to 10. This petitioner is a far relative and was not residing in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and there are

¶42

no specific allegations made against him. If criminal proceedings are continued against him, it will be abuse of process of law, hence, proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶43

Accordingly, the Petition is allowed.

¶44

The criminal proceedings against the petitioneraccused No.11 in C.C.No.5/2022, pending on the file of Prl.Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballaur, arising out of Crime No.125/2021, registered by Women Police Station, Chikkaballapura, is hereby quashed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

(K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶47

bk List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5

Sri Abdul Salam v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Abdul Salam 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

M S Nagesh Vs K S Padmakshegowda

Sri Swamy Gowda Vs Sri K N Raje Gowda

Sri. Ramakrishnappa N., Vs Smt. Manjula H.

Sri N J Basavaraju Vs Rajanna

Sri H R Puttaswamy Gowda Vs Kum Madhuri @ Amrutha

Sri. H v Chintala Reddy Vs Sri. H v Venkata Reddy