[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Junaid Boude vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1295
CRL.P No. 201413 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201413 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. JUNAID BOUDE S/O SHABBIR AHMED
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK
2. KHATOON BEGUM W/O SHABBIR AHMED
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
3. SAJID S/O SHABBIR AHMED
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK
4. WAJID S/O SHABBIR AHMED
Digitally signed by AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
ALL R/O JUNAIDI CHOWK,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF GALID COLONY, KALABURAGI CITY
KARNATAKA
DIST. KALABURAGI - 585101
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANTOSH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE
STATION, DIST.KALABURAGI - 585103
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1295
CRL.P No. 201413 of 2025
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585107
2. NEELOFAR W/O JUNAID BOUDE
AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O GALEEB COLONY,
NOW AT MIZBA NAGAR, KALABURAGI CITY,
DIST.KALABURAGI - 585101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI J. SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF
CR.P.C.(OLD) U/SEC 528 OF BNSS, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.65/2025 OF KALABURAGI
CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI U/SEC 85,
115(2), 351, 352, R/W 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND U/SEC. 3 AND 4
OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961 NOW PENDING ON THE
FILE OF I ADDL C.J (J.D) AND JMFC, KALABURAGI.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the
FIR against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime
No.65/2025 registered by Women Police, Kalaburagi City
for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 115(2),
351, 352 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1295
HC-KAR
Sanhita, 2023 [for brevity, 'the BNS, 2023'] and Sections
3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [for brevity, 'the
D.P. Act'], presently pending on the file of I-Additional
Civil Judge (J.D.) and JMFC, Gulbarga.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that,
respondent No.2 married one Junaid Boude i.e., accused
No.1/petitioner No.1 on 06.01.2024 at Kalaburagi. At the
time of marriage, the parents of respondent No.2 had
given 3 tolas of gold and household articles and spent
Rs.15,00,000/- for the wedding ceremony. After marriage,
respondent No.2 started residing at her matrimonial home
and she was residing cordially and her husband and
mother-in-law were very cordial with her for a period of
two months. Thereafter, they started to harass her both
physically and mentally for additional dowry of
Rs.5,00,000/-. When she expressed her inability to bring
the said amount, they abused her and insulted her. Later
her husband took her to Hyderabad and there also he
continued to harass her. As such, due to intolerable
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1295
HC-KAR
harassment made by her husband and in-laws, respondent
No.2 left the matrimonial home on 09.11.2025 and started
residing at her parental house.
3. Things stood thus, on 22.12.2024 she visited
her matrimonial home to bring back the gold jewelries. At
that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with her
and abused her in filthy language and thrown her out from
the matrimonial house. Hence, she started residing in her
parental house and lodged the complaint before
respondent No.1 - Police. The same is registered in Crime
No.65/2025 dated 27.05.2025 for the aforementioned
offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred
this petition to quash the proceedings.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1 - State. Though notice to respondent No.2 is served,
she remained un-represented.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1295
HC-KAR
5. The primary contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that on perusal of the complaint
averments, except against accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e.,
husband and mother-in-law of respondent No.2, there are
no such allegations against petitioner Nos.3 and 4 i.e.,
brothers-in-law of respondent No.2. According to him,
accused Nos.3 and 4 are residing separately from the
matrimonial home of respondent No.2. In such
circumstances, the proceedings against them cannot be
continued. He also contended that accused Nos.1 and 2
never harassed respondent No.2 and a false complaint has
been lodged against them. Accordingly, he prays to allow
the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader contented that based on the complaint lodged by
respondent No.2, FIR came to be registered and
investigation is under progress. As such, at this stage, the
FIR cannot be quashed. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss
the petition.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1295
HC-KAR
7. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and the documents available on record.
8. As could be gathered from the complaint
averments, there are specific allegations made against
accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e., husband and mother-in-law of
respondent No.2. According to the complainant, after two
months from the marriage, her husband and mother-in-
law started harassing her both physically and mentally by
demanding additional dowry. Accused No.1-husband taken
her to Hyderabad and he continued his harassment. On
22.12.2024 when she visited the matrimonial home,
accused No.2-mother-in-law was very much present there
along with accused No.1 and abused respondent No.2
insulted her and thrown her out from house. In such
circumstance, there are prima facie allegations against
accused Nos.1 and 2. However, except vague and omnibus
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1295
HC-KAR
allegations against accused Nos.3 and 4, there are no such
specific and prima facie materials placed against them.
9. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of K. Subba Rao vs. State of Telangana
represented by its Secretary, Department of Home and
Others reported in 2024 INSC 960, at paragraph No.6
held that the Court 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 instance of their involvement in the crime
are made out. It is also settled position of law that if a
person is made to face a criminal trial on some general
and sweeping allegations without bringing on record any
specific instances of criminal conduct, it is nothing but
abuse of process of the Court. The Courts pose a duty to
subject the allegation levelled in the complaint to a
thorough scrutiny to find out, whether there is any gain of
truth in the allegations or whether they are made only
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1295
HC-KAR
with the sole object of involving certain individuals in a
criminal charge, more particularly when a prosecution
arise from a matrimonial dispute.
10. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Dara Lakshmi Narayan vs. State of Telangana reported in
2025 3 SCC 735, held in para Nos.25 and 28 as under:
"25. A mere reference to the names of family
members in a criminal case arising out of a
matrimonial dispute, without specific allegations
indicating their active involvement should be nipped
in the bud. It is a well-recognised fact, borne out of
judicial experience, that there is often a tendency to
implicate all the members of the husband's family
when domestic disputes arise out of a matrimonial
discord. Such generalised and sweeping accusations
unsupported by concrete evidence or particularized
allegations cannot form the basis for criminal
prosecution. Courts must exercise caution in such
cases to prevent misuse of legal provisions and the
legal process and avoid unnecessary harassment of
innocent family members. In the present case,
appellant Nos.2 to 6, who are the members of the
family of appellant No.1 have been living in different
cities and have not resided in the matrimonial house
of appellant No.1 and respondent No.2 herein.
Hence, they cannot be dragged into criminal
prosecution and the same would be an abuse of the
process of the law in the absence of specific
allegations made against each of them.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1295
HC-KAR
28. The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by
way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty
inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family,
ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in
recent years, as there have been a notable rise in
matrimonial disputes across the country,
accompanied by growing discord and tension within
the institution of marriage, consequently, there has
been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like
Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing
personal vendetta against the husband and his
family by a wife. Making vague and generalised
allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not
scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes
and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics
by a wife and/or her family. Sometimes, recourse is
taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the
husband and his family in order to seek compliance
with the unreasonable demands of a wife.
Consequently, this Court has, time and again,
cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his
family in the absence of a clear prima facie case
against them."
11. It is settled position of law that Courts have to
be careful and cautious in dealing with complaint and must
take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing
with matrimonial disputes, where the allegations have to
be scrutinized with great care and circumspection in order
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1295
HC-KAR
to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of
Court.
12. Hence, I am of the considered view there are
prima facie materials forthcoming against petitioner Nos.1
and 2 i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 and the proceedings
against them cannot be quashed. However, continuation of
proceedings against petitioner Nos.3 and 4 i.e., accused
Nos.3 and 4 is abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed in part.
ii. The petition in respect of petitioner
Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 is
dismissed.
iii. The petition in respect of petitioner
Nos.3 and 4/accused Nos.3 and 4 is
allowed.
iv. The proceedings against the petitioner
Nos.3 and 4/accused Nos.3 and 4 in
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1295
HC-KAR
Crime No.65/2025 registered by
Kalaburagi Women Police Station,
Kalaburagi, against the petitioner Nos.3
and 4 for the offences punishable under
Sections 85, 115(2), 351, 352 read with
Section 3(5) of BNS 2023 and Sections 3
and 4 of D.P. Act, presently pending on
the file of I-Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)
and JMFC, Kalaburagi is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
CT-BH
