Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Ilyas S/O Ibrahimsab ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103488 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMAD ILYAS S/O IBRAHIMSAB DEVARMANI
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 7TH CROSS IBRAHIMPUR ONI,
OLD HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI DIST. DHARWAD.
2. SAHIRABANU W/O IBRAHIMSAB DEVARMANI
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWORK,
R/O. 7TH CROSS IBRAHIMPUR ONI,
OLD HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI DIST. DHARWAD.
3. SAJEEDA W/O ABDUL KADER SONOR
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWORK,
R/O. MANTUR ROAD, MULALLI BLOCK
TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
4. FARIDA W/O TAZUDDIN RANEBENNUR
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK,
KATTIMANI R/O. VISHAL NAGAR, GUDDIHALLA ROAD,
TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
5. RASHEEDA W/O JAMEERHAMAD AMBADAGATTI
KATTIMANI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK,
Date: 2026.02.26
17:43:46 +0530 R/O. KELLADAR ONI, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
DIST. BELGAUM.
6. NAZEER S/O ALLABAKSH GOUDIWALE
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. YELLAPUR ONI, OLD HUBBALLI,
TQ. HUBBALLI DIST. DHARWAD.
7. BASHEERAHMED S/O RAJESAB JALAGAR
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. RAILWAY EMPLOYEE,
R/O. TABIB LAND, 3RD CROSS MADINA MASJID,
TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022
HC-KAR
8. SHAHEENA W/O BASHEERAHMED JALAGAR
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOSE WORK
R/O. TABIB LAND, 3RD CROSS MADINA MASJID,
TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
9. MOHAMMADHASIM S/O DONGRISAB MAKANDHAR
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. GARDEN PETHA, TQ. HUBLI,
DIST. DHARWAD.
10. KURSHEED W/O MOHAMMAD DAFEDAR
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK,
R/O. KESHWAPUR, TQ. HUBLI,
DIST. DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HUBLI-580001
ALSO REP BY. SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD. HUBBALLI DHARWAD WOMEN P.S.
2. FARZANA W/O MOHAMMAD ILYAS DEVARMANI,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. TAILORING AND BEAUTICIAN,
R/O. DODDAMANI COLONY,
NEAR BENDIGERI POLICE STATION,
TQ. HUBALI, DIST. DHARWAD - 580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
RENDERED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBLI IN
CRIME NO. 11/2019 AND (NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO. 311/2020)
TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498(A), 323, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT IN SO FAR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 10
ARE CONCERNED.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Prashant Mathapati, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Petition came to be admitted by order dated 03.07.2023.
3. Petitioner herein are accused Nos.1 to 10 and have filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:
"Under the circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be set aside entire proceedings rendered by the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Hubli in Crime No.11 of 2019 and (Now Registered as C.C.No.311/2020) taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act in so far Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 10 are concerned".-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812 CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022 HC-KAR
4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under:
4.1. Based on the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 herein, there was a direction referring the matter to Women Police Station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to register the case and investigate the matter and file appropriate report.
4.2. Based on the said order, a case came to be registered in MAG Crime No.11/2019 on 19.02.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
5. Police after registering the case, thoroughly investigated the matter and filed charge sheet.
6. Column No.17 of the charge sheet would make it clear that marriage of respondent No.2 took place with accused No.1 on 11.12.2011 at Hazrat Mangalshavali Shadihaal Govimohalla, Hubballi and sum of Rs.1,85,000/- was paid as dowry apart from gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.4,80,000/-.-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812 CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022 HC-KAR
7. There was a happy married life for a brief period and thereafter, respondent No.2 became pregnant. At that juncture, there was a demand for additional dowry and there was physical and mental harassment imparted to respondent No.2 by all the petitioners herein.
8. Necessary documents have been collected apart from recording the statement of the independent witness by Investigation Officer before filing the charge sheet which would prima facie indicate the commission of the aforesaid offences by the petitioners.
9. On receipt of the charge sheet materials, learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons to the petitioners.
10. Said order is called in question, in this petition, on following grounds:
The respondent no.2 has filed the complaint alleging that the petitioner no.1 to 10 has assaulted her and tortured her physically and mentally but there is neither MLC Report nor any doctor report and it can be clearly found that the purpose was to harass -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812 CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022 HC-KAR petitioner no.1 to 10 and also amount to abuse of judicial process.
There is a delay of more than 7 years in lodging the information and FIR as to the allegations against the petitioners is not properly explained with any reason by the respondents.
In the complaint of respondent No.2 there are no specific allegations against the petitioner no.1 to 10 it clearly shows that with the intention to defame and abuse the petitioners has made numerus baseless allegations against the petitioners without any proof of evidence.
There is a Civil Suit bearing O.S.No.36/2018 is pending in the Principal District Family Court, Hubli filed by the petitioner no.1 against the respondent no.2 for divorce and for the purpose of taking undue advantage in the said case this false complaint is filed against them.
The complaint and the FIR even if they are read in their entirety, do not link to the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC. There is no semblance of allegation that would touch upon the ingredients as needed for the offence punishable under section 498A of IPC and it is admitted by the respondent no.2 herself that she is residing with her parents.-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812 CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022 HC-KAR On perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegation against the petitioner no.1 to 10 for the offences under section 498A and section 3,4, of Dowry Prohibition Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident have been mentioned in the complaint.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that there is harassment by petitioner No.1 - husband and not by other petitioners and sought for allowing the petition in part.
12. He would also contend that material on record would not directly or indirectly form nexus between petitioner Nos.2 to 10 insofar as present charges are concerned and sought for allowing the petition.
13. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would support the impugned order taking cognizance and proceeding with the criminal case.
14. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812 CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022 HC-KAR
15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that there is no dispute that petitioner No.1 married respondent No.2.
16. Prima facie materials collected by the investigation agency in the form of statements of the charge sheet witnesses and panchanama would establish that there was a demand for dowry at the time of the marriage. Assuming that those articles given at the time of marriage are customary in nature, there was a subsequent demand for the dowry. Material on record also indicate that there is a physical and mental harassment when respondent No.2 was pregnant.
17. Prima facie materials also include the role played by each of the petitioners in the incident. Whether at all the petitioners are connected in the incident or not can only be established after the full-fledged trial.
18. At this stage of consideration of petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the material available on record in the form of charge sheet, this Court does not find any good grounds -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812 CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022 HC-KAR to quash the pending proceedings not only in respect of petitioner No.1 but also in respect of other petitioners.
19. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that maintenance ordered by the duly constituted Court is also not paid by respondent No.1 and there are huge arrears of maintenance.
20. Taking note of all these aspects of the matter, following:
ORDER i. Petition is dismissed.
ii. However, all the defences available to the petitioners are kept open to be urged in the pending trial in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 107