Karnataka High Court
Salman M Sindgikar And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 21 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
WP No. 202446 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 202446 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR.SALMAN M SINDGIKAR
S/O MOHAMMED SHAFI
AGE 31 YEARS
R/A HOUSE NO. LIG 103,
HUDCO COLONY JALANAGAR,
BIJAPUR, BIJAPUR KARNATAKA-586101.
2. MRS. RUKHSANA BEGUM SINDGIKAR
AGE 65 YEARS
W/O MOHAMMED SHAFI
R/A HOUSE NO. LIG 103,
BAGALKOT ROAD, HUDCO COLONY
JAL NAGAR, BIJAPUR,
KARNATAKA-586101.
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA 3. MR. SUHAIL M SINDGIKAR
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH AGE 29 YEARS
COURT OF S/O MOHAMMED SHAFI
KARNATAKA
R/A HOUSE NO. LIG 103,
BAGALKOT ROAD, HUDCO COLONY
JAL NAGAR, BIJAPUR,
KARNATAKA-586101.
4. MR. ABU UMEER M SINDGIKAR
S/O MOHAMMED SHAFI
AGE 30 YEARS
R/A HOUSE NO. LIG 103,
BAGALKOT ROAD, HUDCO COLONY
JAL NAGAR, BIJAPUR,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
WP No. 202446 of 2024
HC-KAR
KARNATAKA-586101.
5. MRS. RUHA JABEEN SINDGIKAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
C/O ABU UMEER SINDGIKAR
R/A HOUSE NO. LIG 103,
BAGALKOT ROAD, HUDCO COLONY
JAL NAGAR, BIJAPUR,
KARNATAKA-586101.
6. SMT. BADRUNNISA ALIYAZ BADAMI
C/O ALIYAZ M BADAMI
AGE 37 YEARS
R/A PLOT 64 WARD NO.32
EAST 1ST MAIN 5TH CROSS
BOUXITE ROAD, KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT
BELGAUM NEHRU NAGAR
BELAGAVI KARNATAKA-590001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P. P. HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MALIK PASHA MOUZAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VIJAYAPURA WOMEN POLICE STATION
REPORESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARAGA-585101.
2. SMT. SHAGUPATA
W/O SLMAN SINDAGIKAR
AGE 27 YEARS
R/O HUDCO COLONY
JALANAGAR VIJAYPURA
KARNATAKA 586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. S. S. MAMADAPUR ADV., FOR R2)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
WP No. 202446 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC 482 OF CR.P.C
AND 528 BNSS ACT, PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE WRIT OF
CRTIORARI QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.
3939/2024 ARISING OUT OF FIR IN CRIME NO.116/2023 OF
VIJAYAPURA WOMEN POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 323, 354, 504
506, 149 OF IPC READ WITH SECTION 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC III VIJAYAPURA, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in C.C.No.3939/2024, arising out of Crime No.116/2023 registered by Women Police, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730 WP No. 202446 of 2024 HC-KAR Act, pending on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-III, Vijayapur.
2. The abridged facts of the case are, respondent No.2 married petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 24.02.2019. At the time of marriage, respondent No.2's parents gave 10 tolas of gold, 5 tolas of silver and Rs.5,00,000/- cash as dowry to petitioner No.1. Thereafter, she started residing at her Matrimonial home along with accused Nos.1 to 6. After one month from the date of marriage, the petitioners started to harass her both physically and mentally and assaulted her by demanding additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-. Further, petitioner No.3 i.e. brother-in- law of respondent No.2 used to watch her while she was bathing and touching her inappropriately. Later, on 13.12.2022 at 10:00 a.m. the petitioners gave life threat to her, as she failed to get a car and register the house situated in Belagum in the name of her husband. Finally on 25.03.2023, they threw her out from the matrimonial -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730 WP No. 202446 of 2024 HC-KAR home. Hence, she lodged a complaint on 14.06.2023 before respondent No.1-Police against the petitioners
3. On the strength of said complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.116/2023 dated 14.06.2023 against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences. Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences by arraying them as accused Nos.1 to 6. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 preferred this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contended that petitioner No.1-husband of respondent No.2 issued Talaq notice to her initially on 24.12.2022, subsequently on 23.01.2023 and finally on 22.02.2023, as such, their -6- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730 WP No. 202446 of 2024 HC-KAR marriage dissolved as per the Muslim Personal Law. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 gave a representation to the Station House Officer at Belagavi on 27.01.2023 by informing that he had issued Talaq to respondent No.2. Accordingly, the said Police issued an endorsement to petitioner No.1 to resolve their dispute in the Family Court. He further contended that, at no point of time, the petitioners' harassed respondent No.2, as claimed by her.
6. According to learned Senior counsel, petitioner No.1 is an Engineer, petitioner No.2, being his mother, residing along with petitioner No.4 at Hubballi, petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are no way concerned to the alleged incident and they are implicated in the alleged crime out of vengeance. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the petition by contending that the petitioners approached this Court for -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730 WP No. 202446 of 2024 HC-KAR relief of quashing the FIR/Proceedings in W.P.No.200392/2024 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order 12.02.2024. Despite, without any changed circumstance, the petitioners once again filed this petition for similar relief. As such, the petition is not maintainable.
8. He further contended that, on perusal of the complaint and charge sheet materials, it is categorically stated by respondent No.2 that after one month from the date of marriage, these petitioners harassed her both physically and mentally for additional dowry and to register a house situated at Belagavi in the name of petitioner No.1. Additionally, petitioner No.3 misbehaved with respondent No.2. In such circumstance, there are prima facie materials against the petitioners. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the -8- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730 WP No. 202446 of 2024 HC-KAR respective parties and documents made available on record.
10. On perusal of the complaint and charge sheet materials, respondent No.2 has categorically stated, after one month from the date of marriage, the petitioners harassed her both physically and mentally and assaulted for additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-, despite receiving 10 tolas of gold, 5 tolas of silver and Rs.5,00,000/- cash at the time of marriage. Respondent No.2 categorically stated in the complaint that on 13.12.2022 and 25.03.2023, her husband-petitioner No.1 and other petitioners abused her and threw her out of the matrimonial home.
11. On careful perusal of the statement of respondent No.2, her father-CW.4 and her mother-CW.5 along with 164 statement of respondent No.2, there is a clear allegation made against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 i.e. husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Petitioner -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730 WP No. 202446 of 2024 HC-KAR No.1, being the prime accused in this case, allegedly received dowry at the time of marriage and thereafter, harassed respondent No.2 along with others for additional dowry and threw her out from the matrimonial home.
12. Petitioner No.2, being the mother-in-law of respondent No.2, residing along with petitioner No.1, there are prima facie allegations forthcoming against her in the complaint and the statement of the witnesses. It is specifically stated in 164 statement that, petitioner No.3 i.e. accused No.3 used to watch respondent No.2 while she was bathing and also touch her inappropriately. As such, in my considered view, there are prima facie materials placed by the prosecution against petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3. Mere issuance of Talaq notice cannot be a shield/defence to the alleged illegal act committed by petitioner Nos.1 to 3.
13. As far as petitioner Nos.4 to 6/accused Nos.4 to 6 are concerned, petitioner No.4 being the elder brother of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730 WP No. 202446 of 2024 HC-KAR petitioner No.1, petitioner No.5 being the wife of petitioner No.4, residing separately at Belagavi and petitioner No.6 being the married sister of petitioner No.1, residing along with her husband separately at Vijayapura. Additionally, on perusal of the complaint, 164 statement of respondent No.2 and statement of witnesses, except some vague and omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations are made against them.
14. In such circumstance, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and Others reported in 2024 INSC 960, at paragraph No.6 held that, the Court should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped-in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instance of their involvement in the crime are made out. It is also settled position of law that if a person is made to face a criminal
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730 WP No. 202446 of 2024 HC-KAR trial on some general and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. The Courts pose a duty to subject the allegation levelled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny to find out, whether there is any gain of truth in the allegations or whether they are made only with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution arise from a matrimonial dispute.
15. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dara Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Telangana reported in 2025 3 SCC 735, held in para Nos.25 and 28 as under:
"25. A mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud. It is a well- recognised fact, borne out of judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to implicate all the members of the husband's family when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730 WP No. 202446 of 2024 HC-KAR evidence or particularized allegations cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of innocent family members. In the present case, appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the family of appellant No.1 have been living in different cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein. Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the process of the law in the absence of specific allegations made against each of them.
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife. Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730 WP No. 202446 of 2024 HC-KAR Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them."
16. In the instant case, a bare perusal of FIR and charge sheet materials clearly shows that the allegations made by respondent No.2 against petitioner Nos.4 to 6/accused Nos.4 to 6 are vague and omnibus without providing any specific details or described any particular instance of harassment. She has not mentioned the time, date, place or a manner in which the alleged harassment occurred or the details of the nature of demand or its particulars. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise allegations. The term "cruelty" cannot be established without specific instance. The same weakens the case of the prosecution and casts serious doubt on the probability of the version of respondent No.2. The mere general allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730 WP No. 202446 of 2024 HC-KAR
17. It is settled position of law that Courts have to be careful and cautious in dealing with complaint and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial disputes, where the allegations have to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of Court.
18. On overall perusal of the entire charge sheet materials, in my considered view, prima facie case is made out against petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3. However, there are no concrete and specific allegations forthcoming in the charge sheet against petitioner Nos.4 to 6/accused Nos.4 to 6. In that view of the matter, continuation of criminal proceeding against petitioner Nos.4 to 6/accused Nos.4 to 6 is abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed in part.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
WP No. 202446 of 2024
HC-KAR
ii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1
to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed and the proceedings against them shall continue.
iii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.4 to 6/accused Nos.4 to 6 is allowed.
iv. The proceedings in respect of petitioner
Nos.4 to 6/accused Nos.4 to 6 in
C.C.No.3939/2024, arising out of Crime No.116/2023 registered by Women Police, Vijayapura, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 504 and 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-III, Vijayapur, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT/BH