Mrs Rasheeda Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

Mrs Rasheeda Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashment not granted: the petition was held non-entertainable as charges stood framed and trial was in progress; however, accused No.2 (petitioner No.1, the 80-year-old mother-in-law) was exempted from personal appearance except on specific Court orders, and the trial Court was directed to complete the proceedings within six months.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.10667/2016 (offences under Ss.498A, 406, 417/420, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC and Ss.3, 4 DP Act) remains entertainable, given that charges have been framed and the trial is in progress.

Court's answer

Since charges were framed before the filing of the petition and the trial is in progress, the S.482 Cr.P.C. petition seeking quashment of C.C.No.10667/2016 would not become entertainable.

Ratio / Principle

On account of the advancing age of petitioner No.1 (accused No.2, the mother-in-law, now 80 years old), she is exempted from appearing before the concerned Court, except on specific orders passed by the Court in the event of need.

Key takeaways

Since the case pertains to 2016 and close to ten years have elapsed, the concerned Court is directed to dispose of the proceedings within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier, so as to infuse finality.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (M. Nagaprasanna J.), Oral Order dated 24.02.2026 in CRL.P No. 6921 of 2025 (filed under S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS): Petitioners sought quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.10667/2016 before the IV ACMM, Bengaluru, for offences under Ss.498-A, 406, 420 IPC and Ss.3, 4 DP Act. The learned HCGP, on verification of records, reported that charges had been framed even before the filing of the petition and the trial was in progress; the Court therefore held the petition would not become entertainable. Considering the advanced age (80 years) of petitioner No.1, the mother-in-law (arrayed as accused No.2), she was exempted from personal appearance before the trial Court except upon specific orders of the Court in the event of need. Observing that the case was of 2016 and nearly ten years old, the trial Court was directed to dispose of the proceedings within an outer limit of six months from receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier. The petition stands disposed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11241 CRL.P No. 6921 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6921 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

MRS RASHEEDA

W/O LATE SIRAJ UL HAQ, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka

MRS. NIKHATH FATHIMA, W/O MOHSIN, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 25/1 ANKANPPA BLOCK, J C NAGAR,

BANGALORE - 560 006.

MR. MOHAMMED AKRAM, S/O LATE SIRAJ UL HAQ, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PETITIONERS NOS.1 AND 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 15/1 COLONEL HILL ROAD,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:11241 CRL.P No. 6921 of 2025

HC-KAR

SHIVAJINAGAR

BANGALORE - 560 051.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. SHAHNAWAZ M. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION

BANGALORE - 560 078.

SMT. MAHJABEEN W/O MOHAMMED AZAM AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 111, 20TH CROSS K.R. LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 078.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.10667/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE IV ACMM BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 498-A, 406, 420 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF DP ACT (ANNEXURE D).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11241 CRL.P No. 6921 of 2025

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before the Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.10667/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406, 417, 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

Heard Sri. Shahnawaz M. Mamadapur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

The learned High Court Government Pleader on instructions and verification of the records would submit that the charges are framed even before filing of the present petition and the trial is in progress. In that light, the petition would not become entertainable.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would project the advancing age of petitioner No.1, who is now 80 years old, would not be in a position to attend the

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:11241 CRL.P No. 6921 of 2025

HC-KAR

proceedings. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to exempt accused No.2, who is now 80 years old, the mother-in-law from appearing before the concerned Court except on a specific orders passed by the Court, in the event of need.

Since the issue is of 2016 and close to 10 years have passed by, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality into the proceedings with a direction to the concerned Court to dispose the proceedings, within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands

disposed.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

JY

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6