Dismissed¶48

Peerapasha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2026CRL.P/201852/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Kalaburagi Bench; quashing of criminal proceedings; discharge under S.239 CrPC rejected; offences u/ss 498A, 504, 506, 323 r/w 34 IPC (dowry/cruelty); private complaint referred u/s 156(3) CrPC; prima facie materials in charge sheet; revision dismissed; petition dismissed by single judge M G Uma.

What did the court decide?

The court answered the framed point in the negative, i.e., the petitioners had not made out grounds to quash the criminal proceedings. ¶34

Peerapasha Vs the State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-K:421 CRL.P No. 201852 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶5

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶6

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201852 OF 2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

PEERAPASHA S/O GULAM MOHAMMED KHAJI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCCU: AGRI., AND DRIVER,

¶12

YASIN BEGUM D/O GULAM MOHAMMED KHAJI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶13

JAHANGEER S/O GULAM MOHAMMED KHAJI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O ROUDAKUNDA VILLAGE, SINDHANUR, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RIAHCUR - 584 128.

¶14

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

AND:

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SINDHANUR TOWN POLICE STATION, REPT. BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DIST. KALABURAGI - 585 103.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC-K:421 CRL.P No. 201852 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW), U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY CALLING FOR THE RECORD AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 1004-2024, PASSED BY THE III ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR, SITTING AT SIDHANUR IN CRL.RP NO. 07/2023 AND CONSEQUENTLY SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05-01-2023 IN CC NO. 834/2013, PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDHANUR, THEREBY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2, 3 AND 4 U/SEC. 239 SEEKING THEIR DISCHARGE FROM THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 504, 506, 323 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, PENDING FOR TRIAL IN CRL.RP NO. 07/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SINDHANUR, REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT SINDHANUR POLICE IN CRIME NO. 97/2013, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶25

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners being accused Nos.2 to 4 in CC.No.834/2013 pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindhanur, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and seeking to set aside the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Trial Court and the order dated 10.04.2024 passed in Crl.RP.No.7/2023 by the Divisional Court rejecting the application filed by the

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-K:421 CRL.P No. 201852 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

petitioners under Section 239 of Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C').

¶31

Heard Sri. Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Gopalkrishna, learned HCGP for respondent. Perused the materials on record.

¶32

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶33

"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

¶34

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:

¶35

REASONS

¶36

The complainant has filed the private complaint before the Trial Court making allegations against accused Nos.1 to 4. Accused No.1 is the husband, accused Nos.2 and 4 are the

¶37

maternal uncles and accused No.3 is the maternal aunt of accused No.1. It is stated that accused No.1 married the complainant on 16.08.2009 and she was residing in the

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-K:421 CRL.P No. 201852 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

matrimonial house. It is alleged that all the accused who were residing together have ill-treated, the complainant on various occasions and she was subjected to cruelty by abusing her. On 25.03.2013 at 4:00 pm, when she was residing in her parents house, the accused have illegally trespassed into the house and demanded dowry and assaulted her by abusing in filthy language and threatened her with dire consequences, if she fails to bring dowry as demanded. It is alleged by the complainant that on the very next day she went to Sindhanur Town Police Station and narrated the incident. But inspite of that, no complaint was registered which compelled her to file the private complaint on 18.04.2013.

¶41

On the basis of filing the private complaint, the matter was referred for investigation by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed and as many as nine witnesses are cited in the charge sheet. CW.1 is the complainant, CWs.2 and 3 are the eyewitnesses. The statements of these witnesses prima facie discloses commission of the offences by the accused.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC-K:421 CRL.P No. 201852 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Therefore, I am of the opinion that there are prima facie materials to constitute the offences as alleged.

¶46

The petitioners have filed the application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C seeking their discharge. The Trial Court by a well reasoned order rejected the application. Crl.RP.No.7/2023 was filed challenging the order passed by the Trial Court and said Criminal Revision Petition also came to be dismissed. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court are just and proper and they are supported by the materials. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

The petition is dismissed .

¶49

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶50

PNV - CT:VS - List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2

Peerapasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peerapasha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nirmala Vs B. R. Basavarajappa

Sri. Venkatesh a P Vs the State of Karnataka

Sheela G Nayak Vs State by

Sri Narasappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sanjay Gowda Kottigehara Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr. Sripathi Rao Vs State of Karnataka