High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 307 IPC, and Dowry Prohibition Act, finding prima facie materials existed and allegations were specific.
Petition to quash criminal proceedings is dismissed; proceedings continue.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 25679 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.15 6TH CROSS, SHIVAJI ROAD, N R MOHALLA, MYSORE-570007
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VASIM PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SIRAJUDDIN AHMED, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1
SMT. GOWHAR UNNISA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION R/W 482 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDING IN CR.NO. 114/2019, S.C.NO. 5/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 307 OF IPC AND 3, 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE III ADDL DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMNAGARA AT RAMNAGARA. AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.1147/2019 of Ramanagara Women Police Station, pending in SC No.5/2021 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act (for short 'DP Act') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022
HC-KAR
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
against the petitioners alleging that petitioner No.1 being the husband, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 being the mother and sister of accused No.1 have ill-treated respondent No.2. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that she married accused No.1 on 01.07.2017 and from the wedlock, a girl child was born on 07.04.2018. Accused No.1 at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 3 started abusing the informant that she is not good looking and he does not like her. There was a demand for additional
dowry and he used to harass respondent No.2 in the matrimonial house. She was forcefully dropped near her
NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022
HC-KAR
parental house on 28.02.2019. On 02.03.2019, accused No.1 along with accused No.2 came to her parental house, abused and assaulted her with hands. The first information was lodged before East Police Station and the police have registered NCR.No.35/2019. Since the petitioners undertook to take respondent No.2 back to matrimonial house and treat her properly, no criminal case was registered. However, the petitioners have not bothered to take her back and therefore, the first information as filed was registered in Crime No.114/2019. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be field for the above said offences. Now the matter is pending in SC.No.5/2021.
NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022
HC-KAR
of the witnesses disclose that the incident had also occurred on 02.03.2019 at 11:30 am, where it is alleged that accused have traveled to Bengaluru to see the informant and have ill-treated respondent No.2 by demanding additional dowry.
NC: 2026:KHC:990 WP No. 25679 of 2022
HC-KAR
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that four bangles were returned and even Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by cash. Ofcourse there is no acknowledgment for having complied with terms of the agreement. Therefore, it is a disputed fact.
ORDER
The petition is dismissed .
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
PNV - CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the writ petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?
7 provisions across 5 enactments
Ameen Khan S/o Hameed Khan
Shaheena Banu W/o Hameed Khan
Yasmin Taj @ Yasmeen D/o Hameed Khan
State of Karnataka
Amrin Banu W/o Ameen Khan
M G UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
