Karnataka High Court
Smt. Jameela Khatoon vs State By Mico Layout Police Station on 21 March, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:11990
CRL.P No. 1122 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1122 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. JAMEELA KHATOON
W/O. LATE MOHAMMED YAKOOB,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
(AT THE TIME OF CHARGE SHEET I.E., 2015
AGE:70 YEARS AS PER AADHAR CARD)
R/A NO. 684/113,
JEEVANPUR MOHALLA,
NEAR HAYATH HABEEB SCHOOL,
CHANNAPATNA-562 160,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
2. MR. MOHAMMED SHAKEEL
S/O. LATE MOHAMMED YAKOOB,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 684/113,
JEEVANPUR MOHALLA,
NEAR HAYATH HABEEB SCHOOL,
Digitally signed by B
K
CHANNAPATNA-562 160,
MAHENDRAKUMAR RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. SMT. YASMEEN
W/O. SADIQ ALI FAROOQI,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 1339, SHAIK COLONY,
NEAR JANATH SAW MILL,
B.M. ROAD CROSS,
CHANNAPATNA-562 160,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
4. MR. MOHAMMED SABJAN
@ BUDAN KHAN
S/O. LATE SAIT AHMED KHAN,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:11990
CRL.P No. 1122 of 2024
(AS PER CHARGE SHEET
75 YEARS AS PER AADHAR CARD)
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 484, G.M. STREET,
DAIRA, CHANNAPATNA-562 160,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
5. MR. MOHAMMED IRFAN
S/O. LATE MOHAMMED YAKOOB,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 684/113,
JEEVANPUR MOHALLA,
NEAR HAYATH HABEEB SCHOOL,
CHANNAPATNA-562 160,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. GOWHAR UNNISA., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION
MICO LAYOUT, BANGALORE,
REPTD. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SMT. NAZIA RUHINA
D/O. NOORULLA SHARIFF,
W/O. MOHAMMED SUHEEL,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 32, 6TH MAIN,
NEAR MOTHERLAND SCHOOL,
NEW GURUPPAN PALYA,
BENGALURU-560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SYED KHALEEL PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET/CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.14010/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL
C.M.M, BENGALURU ON THE BASIS OF FIR REGISTERED AS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:11990
CRL.P No. 1122 of 2024
CRIME NO.1065/2014 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCE P/US//498-A,506 OF IPC BY THE MICO LAYOUT
POLICE THAT IS THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY ALLOWING THE
ABOVE PETITION, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 5, who have
been charge sheeted for offences punishable under
Sections 498-A and 506 of the IPC are before this Court
seeking relief.
2. The prosecution alleges that the marriage of
accused No.1 with the de facto complainant was
solemnized on 28.08.2006, and that for a period of three
months they led a cordial marital life. It is further alleged
that accused No. 2 (mother), accused No. 3 (brother),
accused No. 4 (sister), accused No. 5 (maternal uncle of
accused No. 1), and accused No. 6 (brother) subjected the
de facto complainant to cruelty both mentally and
physically.
3. The submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties were heard.
4. A perusal of the FIR filed by the de facto
complainant indicates that the marriage was solemnized
NC: 2025:KHC:11990
on 28.08.2006, and that initially the complainant enjoyed
a cordial marital life for three months, after which all the
accused subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. On
05.12.2011, the de facto complainant underwent heart
surgery, for which the family incurred significant
expenses; however, despite her medical emergency, the
accused showed no sympathy and treated her as a
servant.
5. There is no specific overt act attributed to each
accused that details how and in what manner they
individually subjected the de facto complainant to mental
and physical cruelty.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Kahkashan
Kausar Alias Sonam and Others v. State of Bihar and
Others, observed as follows:
Para 17:
"The aforementioned 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
NC: 2025:KHC:11990
relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima
facie case is made out against them."
Para 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."
Para 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 any specific overt act
detailing how and in what manner the petitioners allegedly
subjected the complainant to mental and physical cruelty,
the petitioners cannot be prosecuted based solely on
general and omnibus allegations. Allowing such a
NC: 2025:KHC:11990
prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of
law. It is further noted that, although cognizance was
taken in the year 2015, the trial has not yet commenced.
8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The
impugned proceedings in C.C. No.14010/2015, pending on
the file of the learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as they relate to the
petitioners-accused Nos. 2 to 6, are hereby quashed.
9. The Trial Court is directed to proceed against
accused No. 1 in accordance with law, without being
influenced by the observations made in this order, which
are rendered solely for the purpose of this petition.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
BKM
