Karnataka High Court
Rajabi Bashasab Nadaf vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101936 OF 2025
(482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. RAJABI BASHASAB NADAF,
W/O. BASHASAB,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE MAKER,
R/O. #200, MICRO STATION, MARAGOA,
VASCO, SOUTH GOA, GOA-403802.
2. BASHASAB BABUSAB NADAF,
S/O. BABUSAB,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. #200, MICRO STATION, MARAGOA,
Digitally signed VASCO, SOUTH GOA, GOA-403802.
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
3. MARDANABI AJJUSAB NADAF,
Dharwad
Bench W/O. AJJUSAB,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE MAKER,
R/O. MADAPUR, TQ. SAVANUR,
DIST. HAVERI, KARNATAKA-581126.
4. AJJUSAB NADAF S/O. KHADERSAB,
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. MADAPUR, TQ. SAVANUR,
DIST. HAVERI, KARNATAKA-581126.
5. MEHABOOBI SAHIL SHAH W/O. SAHIL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025
HC-KAR
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE MAKER,
R/O. 27-11-1518, BALAJI NAGAR,
NELLORE, TQ. DIST. NELLORE,
ANDHRA PRADESH-584002.
...PETITIONERS
(BY KUMARI KAVITA RATHOD, ADV. FOR
SRI. SANKET SHANKRAPPA AMBALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH WOMEN P. S. HUBBALLI,
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT, DHARWAD.
2. RESHMA W/O. RAMJANSAB NADAF,
OCC: PRIVATE BUSINESS, AGE: 35 YEARS,
SUBANI NAGAR, SAI NAGAR ROAD,
HOUSE NO.48, UNAKAL,
HUBBALLI, KARNATAKA-580031.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. ROSHAN SAHEB CHABBI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. (U/S.528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR,
CHARGESHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 6 IN
C.C.NO.10102/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED III ADDL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W. 149
OF IPC, 1860 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
CRL.P No. 101936 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
Heard Kumari.Kavita Rathod, learned counsel for
Sri.Sanket Shankrappa Ambali, learned counsel for
petitioners, Sri.Abhishek Mallipatil, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and
Sri.Roshank Saheb Chabbi, learned counsel for respondent
No.2
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred as per their status before the trial Court. Petitioners
herein are accused Nos.2 to 6 and respondent No.2 is the
de-facto complainant.
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is as
under:
The marriage of accused No.1 with the de-facto
complainant was solemnized on 18.12.2008. Soon after the
marriage, their relationship was cordial for a couple of years.
Thereafter, all the petitioners and accused No.1 started to
harass the de-facto complainant in connection with demand
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
HC-KAR
of dowry and they were insulted the de-facto complainant
without providing proper food, thus, they evicted her from
matrimonial house.
4. On 25.08.2019 at about 8.30 p.m., all the
accused persons took quarrel with her, abused her in filthy
language and intentional insulted her to provoke her breach
of peach and made criminal intimidation to eliminate her and
voluntarily caused hurt to the de-facto complainant. Hence,
thereby, they evicted her from matrimonial house and on
05.11.2020 at about 8.00 p.m., all the accused persons
came to the house of the de-facto complainant, made
criminal intimidation to eliminate her, if she did not give
Talaq to accused No.1. Thereby, abused her in filthy
language. Hence she lodged a complaint. On the basis of the
complaint, respondent police, registered the case and took
up the investigation and after completion of the investigation
filed charge sheet in C.C.No.10102/2021 before the Trial
Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
HC-KAR
5. Being aggrieved by initiation of proceedings in
C.C.No.10102/2021, these petitioners being accused Nos.2
to 6 have filed this petition praying to quash the entire
proceedings initiated against them.
6. It is contended that, petitioners are innocent of
the alleged offences, they have been falsely implicated in the
crime and the allegations made in the complaint are vague
and omnibus in nature, in view of there being no specific
allegations against the accused persons. The incident
occurred on 25.08.2019 and 05.11.2020. However, the de-
facto complainant lodged her complaint on 09.08.2021.
Hence, there is a delay of 9 months in lodging the complaint.
In fact, these petitioners are not involved in the alleged
offences. Hence, she prayed to quash the proceedings.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent
No.2 contended that, petitioners are involved in the offences
punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC. There are prima facie materials
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
HC-KAR
against these petitioners, therefore, at this stage the
proceedings cannot be quashed.
8. I have perusal of material available on record. It
appears that, the learned Magistrate on perusal of charge
sheet materials took cognizance of the aforesaid offences
and issued process.
9. As per charge-sheet material, the de-facto
complainant made allegations that, these petitioners were
harassing her in connection with demand of dowry and they
were abused her in filthy language and made criminal
intimidation to eliminate her, if she does not give Talaq to
accused No.1. Thereby, these petitioners evicted de-facto
complainant from the matrimonial house in the year 2019
itself.
10. It is the case of the de-facto complainant that in
the year 2020 again, all the accused persons, came to her
house and took quarrel with her and abused her in filthy
language and made criminal intimidation to eliminate her
and voluntarily caused hurt.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
HC-KAR
11. Admittedly, the first information was lodged after
2 years from the date, on which, the complainant was
thrown out from the matrimonial house. The last incident
was occurred on 05.11.2020. However after lapse of 9
months the de facto complainant lodged a complaint. Except
general and omnibus allegations, there is no specific
allegation made against these petitioners, as to how and in
what manner they subjected de facto complainant to cruelty
both physically and mentally and also demanded to bring
dowry from her parental house.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
A.P. Vs. M. Madhusudhan Rao1 at paragraph No.30, has
held as follows:
"Time and again, the object and importance of
prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been
highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report,
more often than not, results in embellishment and
exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A
delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of
spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured
(2008) 15 SCC 582
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
HC-KAR
version, exaggerated account of the incident or a
concocted story as a result of deliberations and
consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on
its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in
lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained."
13. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs. The State Of Bihar2 at
Paragraph 18, has held as follows:
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC
and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the
husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the
long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as
well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication by way of general
omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial
dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the
process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its
judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against
the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima
facie case is made out against them."
14. In the absence of any material that accused
Nos.2 to 6 have subjected the complainant to cruelty both
(2022) 6 SCC 599
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
HC-KAR
physically and mentally and also that there was demanding
to bring dowry from her parental home, the cognizance
taken by the learned Magistrate insofar as Section 498(A) is
not tenable.
15. Further, the ingredients of Sections 504 and 506
of IPC are also not established. In fact, the prosecution has
to show that accused persons have intentionally insulted the
de-facto complainant, so as to give her provocation,
intending or knowing that such provocation will cause her
break the public peace or to commit any other offences.
Thus, mere act of insulting a person would not satisfy the
ingredients of Section 504 of IPC.
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Fiona
Shrikhande Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Another,3 at
Paragraph Nos.13 and 14, has held as under:
"13. Section 504 IPC comprises of the following
ingredients, viz., (a) intentional insult, (b) the insult must
be such as to give provocation to the person insulted, and
(c) the accused must intend or know that such
AIR (2014) SC 2013
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
HC-KAR
provocation would cause another to break the public
peace or to commit any other offence. The intentional
insult must be of such a degree that should provoke a
person to break the public peace or to commit any other
offence. The person who intentionally insults intending or
knowing it to be likely that it will give provocation to any
other person and such provocation will cause to break the
public peace or to commit any other offence, in such a
situation, the ingredients of Section 504 are satisfied. One
of the essential elements constituting the offence is that
there should have been an act or conduct amounting to
intentional insult and the mere fact that the accused
abused the complainant, as such, is not sufficient by itself
to warrant a conviction under Section 504 IPC.
14. We may also indicate that it is not the law that
the actual words or language should figure in the
complaint. One has to read the complaint as a whole and,
by doing so, if the Magistrate comes to a conclusion,
prima facie, that there has been an intentional insult so as
to provoke any person to break the public peace or to
commit any other offence, that is sufficient to bring the
complaint within the ambit of Section 504 IPC. It is not
the law that a complainant should verbatim reproduce
each word or words capable of provoking the other person
to commit any other offence. The background facts,
circumstances, the occasion, the manner in which they
are used, the person or persons to whom they are
addressed, the time, the conduct of the person who has
indulged in such actions are all relevant factors to be
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
HC-KAR
borne in mind while examining a complaint lodged for
initiating proceedings under Section 504 IPC."
17. So far as Section 506 of IPC is concerned, in
order to satisfy the ingredients of offence of criminal
intimidation, there has to be threat of injury to a person,
reputation or property of the complainant by the accused,
which should be the intention to cause harm to that person
or to cause that person to do any act, which is not legally
bound to do, or to omit to do so as to avoid the execution of
such threat. In the case of Manik Taneja & Another Vs.
State Of Karnataka & Another4 the Hon'ble Apex Court
had an occasion to examine the ingredients of Section 506 of
IPC, wherein the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court is as under:
"The legal position is well-settled that when a
prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the
test to be applied by the Court is as to whether the
uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish
the offence. It is also for the Court to take into
consideration any special features which appear in a
particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in
the interest of justice to permit the prosecution to
(2015) Part 7 SCC 423
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
HC-KAR
continue. Where, in the opinion of the Court, the chances
of ultimate conviction is bleak and no useful purpose is
likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to
continue, the Court may quash the proceeding even
though it may be at a preliminary stage."
18. So far as the Section 323 of IPC is concerned,
though the de facto complainant has made out the
allegations against the petitioners, neither the complainant
nor the Investigating Officer has furnished Wound Certificate
to show that these petitioners have voluntarily caused bodily
injury to the complainant.
19. In the instant case as discussed herein above and
material on record coupled with the allegation made in the
complaint, the complainant does not establish the offences
under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 and 323 of IPC against
these petitioners.
20. In view of the above analysis, the continuation of
criminal proceedings against these petitioners i.e., accused
Nos.2 to 6, will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I
pass the following:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9115
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.10102/2021 on the
of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Hubballi, for the offences punishable under
Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC,
insofar as it relates to the petitioners (Accused
Nos.2 to 6) are concerned, are hereby
quashed.
In view of the disposal of the petition, pending
applications, if any, do not survive for consideration,
accordingly stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
AC /CT-AN
