Karnataka High Court
Sri Khaleel T E @ Khaleel Ahmed vs State Of Karnataka By on 6 March, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:9636
CRL.P No. 8192 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8192 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SRI KHALEEL T E @ KHALEEL AHMED
S/O. ESAMIYAN T S,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35, SAMY CHETTY STREET,
TIRUPATTUR, VELLORE,
TAMIL NADU 635 601.
2. SMT. SHAHANAZ KHALEEL,
W/O. KHALEEL T E,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO.35, SAMY CHETTY STREET,
TIRUPATTUR, VELLORE,
TAMIL NADU - 635 601.
3. SMT. HASEENA NAZNIN,
Digitally signed by B
K W/O. MUZAMIL TAJMUL HUSSAIN,
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/AT NO.44/10, KANDASAMY STREET,
PALLIPATTU, TTTI THARAMANI,
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600 113.
ADDRESS SHOWN IN THE F.I.R.
NO.35, SAMY CHETTY STREET,
TIRUPATTUR, VELLORE,
TAMIL NADU 635 601.
4. SRI. MUZAMIL TAJMUL HUSSAIN,
S/O. TAJMUL HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.44/10, KANDASAMY STREET,
PALLIPATTU THARAMANI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:9636
CRL.P No. 8192 of 2024
PALLIPATTU THARAMANI,
TTTI THARAMANI, CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU 600 113.
ADDRESS SHOWN IN THE F.I.R.
NO.36, SAMY CHETTY STREET,
TIRUPATTUR, VELLORE,
TAMIL NADU - 635 601.
5. SRI. ASGAR BASHA M
S/O. SYED MUJEEB,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT NO.2/21, MUSLIM STREET,
PUTHAGARAM, NATRAMPALLI, VELLOR,
TAMIL NADU - 635 651.
ADDRESS SHOWN IN THE F.I.R.
NO.36, SAMY CHETTY STREET,
TIRUPATTUR, VELLORE,
TAMIL NADU - 635 601.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
EAST ZONE WOMEN POLICE,
BENGALURU 560 051.
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HCK, BANGALORE - 01)
2. SMT. BIBI AEYSHA,
W/O. NAYEEM AHMED,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.40, 2ND CROSS,
BENSON CROSS, BENSON TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 046.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:9636
CRL.P No. 8192 of 2024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.102/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE
EAST ZONE WOMEN P.S., BENGALURU, WHICH IS PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 11th ACMM, BENGALURU, FOR THE
OFFENCES U/S 498-A,504,506,34 OF IPC, U/S 3 AND 4 OF DP
ACT.
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. 2 to 6 are before this Court
seeking relief. They are facing an investigation under Sections
498A, 504, 506, and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Respondent No. 2 lodged the FIR, stating that her
marriage was solemnized with accused No. 1 on February 20,
2022. The petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 5 are her parents-in-
law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, while accused No. 6 is the
person who negotiated the marriage. The police registered the
FIR for the aforesaid offences.
3. Despite service of notice, respondent No. 2 (the
complainant) has not appeared in person or through counsel and
is thus placed ex parte.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.
1 (State) were heard.
NC: 2025:KHC:9636
5. A perusal of the impugned FIR indicates that the
complainant's marriage with accused No. 1 was solemnized on
February 20, 2022. After the marriage, the complainant and her
husband lived together for a couple of days. Thereafter, accused
No. 1 promised the complainant that he would stay in Bengaluru
and start a new business; however, he went to Dubai to work
and never called or responded to the complainant's calls. It is
further alleged that, at the instance of the accused herein,
accused No. 1 engaged in a quarrel with the complainant.
Moreover, the allegations in the FIR are omnibus and general in
nature, failing to specify any overt act or detail how each of the
accused subjected her to cruelty. The fact that the complainant
lived with accused No. 1 for a couple of days without suffering
physical or mental cruelty further undermines the allegations.
6. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar Alias Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and Others -
2022 INSC 163, at paragraphs 17, 18, and 21, held as follows:
"17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of
Telangana, it was also observed that:
"6. The Courts 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 instances of their
involvement in the crime are made out."
NC: 2025:KHC:9636
18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has, on numerous
occasions, expressed concern over the misuse of
Section 498A IPC and the increasing tendency of
implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial
disputes, without analyzing the long-term
ramifications of a trial on both the complainant and
the accused. It is further manifest from the said
judgments that false implication through general
omnibus allegations made in the course of a
matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked, would result in
the misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
Court, through its judgments, has cautioned against
prosecuting the relatives and in-laws of the husband
when no prima facie case is made out against them.
21. Here, it must be borne in mind that although the
two FIRs may constitute two independent instances
based on separate transactions, the present
complaint fails to establish specific allegations
against the in-laws of the respondent-wife. Allowing
prosecution in the absence of clear allegations
against the in-laws (appellants) would simply result in
an abuse of the process of law."
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, continuing the
investigation in the absence of any substance indicating that the
petitioners subjected the complainant to physical or mental
cruelty would be an abuse of the process of law.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned
FIR in Crime No. 102/2023, registered by the East Zone Women
NC: 2025:KHC:9636
Police Station, Bengaluru, and pending before the learned 11th
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as it
relates to the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 6 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
BKM
