Karnataka High Court
Miss Sanju J H vs State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9204
CRL.P No. 4903 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4903 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. MISS. SANJU J H
D/O LATE HONNUR SAAB
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ADDRESS AS PER REMAND APPLICATION
NO.1707/1A, 2ND CROSS,
2ND MAIN MOTHI LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE-577002.
ADDRESS AS PER AADHAR CARD
NO.1056/5, 3RD CROSS,
2ND MAIN, KURUVATHAPPA BUILDING
KTJ NAGAR,
DAVANAGERE JAYADEA CIRCLE
DAVANAGERE-577002.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.13/32,
Digitally signed by 18TH CROSS, 21ST MAIN,
R HEMALATHA 5TH PHASE JP NAGAR
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-560078.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. MR. KHASIM SAB @ KHASIM SAB P
S/O FAKRU SAB
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
NO.756/F, NEAR POLICE QUARTERS BEHIND
CHURCH P J BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE
SOUTHERN EXTENSION DVG-KARNATAKA-577004.
3. MR. RAJA SAB @ Y N RAJASAB
S/O Y. NABISAB
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
1707/1 KTJ NAGAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9204
CRL.P No. 4903 of 2024
17TH CROSS MOTHI DODAPPA LAYOUT
OPP CHIRENJEEVI SCHOOL
DAVANAGERE, SOUTHERN
EXTENSION DVG
DAVANGERE, KARNATAKA-577004.
4. MR. JAKEER @ JAKEER HUSSAIN M
C/O MAKHTUM SAB
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
128/79, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
KHATUN A JANNATH MASJID NEAR
BN-2 LAYOUT,
KHATUN A JANNAT LAYOUT VTC - DAVANAGERE
PO JAYADEVA CIRCLE
DAVANAGERE SUB: DISTRICT DAVANAGERE
STATE: KARNATAKA
DAVANAGERE-577002.
5. MR. SHAFI @ SHAFIULLA
S/O MAKHTUM SAB
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
NO.117, 3RD MAIN, 11TH CROSS,
VINOBA NAGAR VTC - DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT,
DVG PO DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT - DVG
DISTRICT: DAVANAGERE STATE
KARNATAKA-577006.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DAVANAGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMT. BALKHIZ SABHA
W/O MOHAMMED SALMAN J H
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
NO.1017/1, 2ND MAIN
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9204
CRL.P No. 4903 of 2024
3RD CROSS, MOTHI DODDAPPA LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE KARNATAKA-577002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI. SAMUEL S DANDIN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.34/2024 FOR ALLEGED
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 504, 323, 307, 114, 506 R/W 34 OF
IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT
REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE i.e.,
DAVANAGERE WOMEN POLICE STATION, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, accused Nos. 3 to 7, who are facing
charges under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 307, 114, and 506
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as
Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, have approached
this Court seeking relief from criminal proceedings initiated
against them.
2. The case originates from an FIR lodged by
respondent No.2, the complainant, against her husband
(accused No.1) and her mother-in-law. The complainant alleged
that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelty, abused
in filthy language, and assaulted. She further claimed that the
NC: 2025:KHC:9204
accused demanded that she bring money from her parental
home.
3. In her further statement recorded under Section
161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the
complainant additionally alleged that the petitioners were
present at the time of the marriage proposal between her and
accused No.1 and were involved in negotiations regarding the
demand for dowry. Based on this statement, the petitioners
were arraigned as accused in the case. The police, after
completing their investigation, submitted the charge sheet
against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that
the allegations against them are vague, omnibus, and general
in nature. He contended that apart from the claim that they
were present at the time of marriage negotiations and
participated in dowry discussions, there are no specific
allegations detailing how each petitioner allegedly subjected the
complainant to mental and physical cruelty or assaulted her.
5. Furthermore, the learned counsel submitted that
even if the allegations made against the petitioners are
accepted at face value, they do not satisfy the essential
ingredients required to constitute an offence under the Dowry
Prohibition Act. In support of his argument, he relied on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar v.
State of Bihar, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162.
NC: 2025:KHC:9204
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 contended that the charge sheet materials
clearly establish that the petitioners were involved in the
commission of the alleged offences. He argued that the
contentions raised by the petitioners can only be examined
after a full-fledged trial. At this stage, he submitted that the
veracity of the allegations should not be examined, and
therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
7. After carefully considering the submissions made by
the learned counsel for both parties and perusing the material
on record, the following is noted:
a) The FIR does not contain any allegations regarding
the presence of the petitioners at the time of the marriage
proposal or their involvement in negotiating dowry.
b) It is only in the further statement recorded under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. that respondent No.2 made a vague and
general allegation that the petitioners were present during the
marriage proposal and dowry discussions.
c) There are no specific allegations or overt acts
attributed to the petitioners that indicate how they subjected
respondent No.2 to cruelty, either mentally or physically, or
assaulted her or engaged in demanding of dowry.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam & Others v. State of Bihar, at paragraph 18, has
observed as follows:
NC: 2025:KHC:9204
"The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has, on numerous
instances, expressed concern over the misuse of
Section 498A IPC and the increasing tendency to
implicate the husband's relatives in matrimonial
disputes without assessing the long-term
ramifications of a trial on both the complainant and
the accused. It is further evident from these
judgments that false implications through general
omnibus allegations in matrimonial disputes, if left
unchecked, would lead to a misuse of the process of
law. Therefore, this Court has, through its judgments,
cautioned against proceeding against the relatives
and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case
is made out against them."
9. In light of the observations made by the Apex
Court, and considering that the allegations against the
petitioners are general and lack specific material evidence, the
continuation of criminal proceedings against them would
amount to an abuse of the process of law. The probability of
conviction is remote and bleak in the absence of corroborative
evidence establishing the petitioners' direct involvement in
subjecting respondent No.2 to cruelty or in demanding dowry.
ORDER
i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.NO.122/2025 on
the file of the 2nd Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Court
Davanagere District in so far it relates to petitioners-
accused nos.3 to 7 is hereby quashed.
NC: 2025:KHC:9204
iii) The learned Civil Judge, to proceed against accused
No.1 in accordance with law, without being influenced by
any of the observations made in this order. The
observation, if any made, is only for the purpose of the
present petition.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
HR
