Dismissed

Mr Mohamed Sharif v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Sept 2026CRL.P/10999/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 528 BNSS (and Section 482 CrPC) seeking to quash proceedings against a 70-year-old father-in-law and 55-year-old mother-in-law charged under the BNS, 2023 and Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court held that age alone cannot be a ground to conclude the incident did not occur at the quashing stage, and that the charge sheet prima facie indicates the matter requires trial. The petitioners were directed to file appropriate applications if unable to attend court due to age.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; petitioners may file appropriate applications for exemption from personal appearance if unable to attend court due to age.

Mr Mohamed Sharif Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:50518 CRL.P No. 10999 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010502602026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10999 OF 2026

¶9

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

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MR. MOHAMED SHARIF S/O LATE MOHAMED GOUSE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶12

MRS. TABASUM W/O MOHAMED SHARIF AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶13

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT PUSHPA NILAYA SADASHIVA NAGARA 5TH CROSS, TUMAKUR KARNATAKA-572 101.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. VASANTH KUMAR N., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHITRADURGA WOMEN POLICE STATION

¶18

Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:50518 CRL.P No. 10999 of 2026

¶22

CNR: KAHC010502602026

¶23

REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶24

SHANIZA FATHIMA ROWNAQ D/O MOHAMMED KHALEEL ULLA W/O ADIL SHARIF AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT ASAR MOHALLA CHITRADURGA TOWN CHITRADURGA-577 501.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. NAGHARISH G.S., HCGP FOR R1)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)

¶28

CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.362/2026 (CRIME NO.134/2025) UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961, AND UNDER SECTIONS 54, 85, 115(2), 190 AND 352 OF BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 INITIATED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 OF CHITRADURGA WOMEN POLICE STATION AND CONSEQUENT CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.362/2026 AT ANNEXURE A.

¶29

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

¶30

Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:50518 CRL.P No. 10999 of 2026

¶34

CNR: KAHC010502602026

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent no.1-State.

¶38

This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.362/2026 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chitradurga for the offences alleged under Sections 54, 85, 115(2), 190 and 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that petitioner no.1 is the father-in-law and petitioner no.2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant. Petitioner no.1 is aged 70 years and petitioner no.2 is aged 55 years. The allegations in the charge sheet are exaggerated. The petitioners are not in a position to commit the act as alleged. It is also submitted that the allegations are vague and no specific overt act is alleged against the petitioners, as such, the charge sheet could not have been filed against the petitioners.

¶40

Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE

¶41

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:50518 CRL.P No. 10999 of 2026

¶44

CNR: KAHC010502602026

¶45

Learned HCGP appearing for respondent no.1-State would submit that after investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The charge sheet material would indicate that petitioners are also parties to the acts committed by accused no.1/husband. Admittedly, both the petitioners and accused no.1 are residing together in the same roof, as such, the matter requires investigation and trial.

¶46

The Court has considered the contentions raised and perused the records.

¶47

It is true that petitioner No.1 is 70 years and petitioner No.2 is 55 years. In the complaint there is an allegation that the petitioners used to abuse the complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioners insisted for dowry.

¶48

Whether petitioners really committed the acts alleged is a matter of trial. The charge sheet materials prima facie indicate that the matter requires trial. A trial has to be held to ascertain whether the allegations are true or not. The burden is indeed on the complainant/prosecution to establish the allegations.

¶49

Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:50518 CRL.P No. 10999 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

CNR: KAHC010502602026

¶53

Merely because the petitioners are aged, one cannot come to the conclusion, in a petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, that the alleged incident has not taken place. It is submitted that the petitioners are aged and not in a position to attend the Court. If that is the case, the petitioners may file an appropriate application and necessary documents to support their claim and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed .

¶54

The Court has not expressed anything on the merits or demerits of the petitioners.

¶55

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶56

Digitally Signed by ANANT RAMNATH HEGDE

¶57

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶58

PGG

¶59

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Mr Mohamed Sharif v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mohamed Sharif v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases