Mohammad Farooq Hussainansab ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 3539 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Mohammad Farooq Hussainansab ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                         -1-
                                                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:2191
                                                               CRL.P No. 101956 of 2023




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                     DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
                                                      BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101956 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

                            BETWEEN:

                            1.   MOHAMMAD FAROOQ
                                 HUSSAINSAB HUSSAINNAIKAR,
                                 AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                                 R/O. H.NO. 485, MADEENA MOHALLA ONI,
                                 SAVADATTI, DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591126.
                            2.   ZAINAB @ HEENA
                                 W/O. MOHAMMAD FAROOQ HUSSAINNAIKAR,
                                 AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
                                 R/O. H.NO. 485, MADEENA MOHALLA ONI,
                                 SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.
                            3.   ZOYA NASEEM @ NASEEMA W/O. AYAZ KHAN
                                 AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
                                 R/O. H.NO. 485, MADEENA MOHALLA ONI,
                                 SAVADATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591126.
                                                                          ...PETITIONERS
                            (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

                            AND:
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR


Digitally signed by B K
                            1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.02.06 11:20:59
+0530
                                 THROUGH PSI HD CITY WOMEN
                                 POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY
                                 ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                                 SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                 DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD-580011.
                            2.   SMT. KOWSAR MOHAMMED
                                 YASEEN HUSEINANIKAR,
                                 AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
                                 R/O. RASULPUR ONI, GANDHI CHOWK,
                                 DHARWAD-580001.
                                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
                            (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1;
                             SMT. ANURADHA DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                  -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:2191
                                        CRL.P No. 101956 of 2023




      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO, QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR AND COMPLAINT
REGISTERED IN HUBLI-DHARWAD CITY WOMEN PS CRIME
NO.0062/2023 REGISTERED FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S
498A, 504 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 PENDING ON THE FILE OF JMFC 2ND
COURT      DHARWAD,     IN    SO     FAR    AS    PRESENT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE CONCERNED.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                           ORAL ORDER

The registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 504, r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3, 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is impugned in this petition.

2. The 2nd respondent lodged the FIR stating her marriage with accused No.1 was solemnized on 15.8.2019, and after her marriage she went to Saudatti to lead her marital life for two months, and at that time, her husband- accused No1, accused No.2 to 4 who are the brother-in-laws and sister-in-law subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically and also demanded to bring money from her parental home. After two months, she went with accused No.1-husband to Dubai, and there, accused No.1 subjected her to cruelty both mentally and physically by assaulting her. During the year 2021, she came back to her parental home for delivering a child and a male child was born in the year 2021. In the year 2021, accused No.1 sent his brother and sister-in-law to take them to saudatti, and she stayed in the matrimonial home for a period of one month, and thereafter, she was thrown out of the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2191

matrimonial home and she was residing at her parental home till 2023. At that point of time, accused No.1-husband called her over phone and also sent a message stating that he would look after her well and asked them to come to Dubai. After going to Dubai, the accused No.1, again started to abuse her and assaulted her and she unable to bear the harassment meted out, returned back to her parental home.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 and so also learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

4. Perusal of the FIR indicates that except omnibus and general allegation there is no specific overt acts against each of the said petitioners-accused herein detailing as to how, and in what manner they subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically.

5. Admittedly, the petitioners are the residents of Saudatti, and after marriage the second respondent resided with the petitioners-accused for a period of two months, and thereafter she went to Dubai in 2021 and in the year 2021 she delivered a male child and stayed with the petitioners for a period of one month and thereafter she went to her parental home and was residing there till 2023 and thereafter she went to Dubai and unable to bear the harassment meted out by the accused No.1 she returned back to her parental home. The Specific overt acts of subjecting the defacto complainant-respondent No.2 to cruelty is against accused No.1.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2191

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and Others, observed as follows in paragraphs 17, 18, and 21:

"17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has, on numerous occasions, expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increasing tendency to implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes without analyzing the long-term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further evident from the said judgments that false implication through general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this Court, through its judgments, has cautioned courts against proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

18. In the present case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.2019, it is revealed that general allegations have been leveled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that "all the accused harassed her mentally and threatened to terminate her pregnancy." Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against any of the appellants herein. None of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This leads to a situation where it becomes impossible to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the alleged offence. The allegations, therefore, are general and omnibus and can, at best, be said to have arisen from minor skirmishes.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2191

As for the husband, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of the allegations made against him. However, with respect to the appellants, the general and omnibus allegations made against them do not warrant prosecution.

21. Therefore, upon considering the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant- accused, it would be unjust to subject the appellants to the tribulations of a trial. General and omnibus allegations cannot justify a situation where the husband's relatives are forced to undergo trial. This Court has consistently highlighted that even a criminal trial leading to eventual acquittal leaves severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged."

7. In the absence of specific overt acts alleged against these petitioners, detailing how and in what manner they subjected the complainant to cruelty, both mentally and physically, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted solely on the basis of Omnibus and General allegations is without any substance. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioners-accused herein will be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.62/2023, registered by the Hubballi-Dharwad City Women Police Station, pending on the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:2191

file of II JMFC Court, Dharwad, insofar it relates to petitioners-

accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 is hereby quashed.

iii) The learned Sessions Judge, to proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order and, the observation if any, is only for the purpose of the present petition.

        iv)      All contentions are kept open.

                                            Sd/-
                                  (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
                                           JUDGE
HR
Ct:VH