Riyaz Ahmead S/O Babasab Mehar vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                 -1-
                                                             NC: 2026:KHC-D:2470
                                                       CRL.P No. 100326 of 2023


                       HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD

                       DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                          BEFORE

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100326 OF 2023

                                  (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))

                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    RIYAZ AHMEAD S/O BABASAB MEHAR
                            AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC. NIL,

                      2.    GULZAR BEGUM W/O RIYAZ AHMED MEHAR
                            AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                            OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK

                      3.    MUNEER AHMED SHAIKH S/O DAVALSAB SHAIKH
                            AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
                            OCC. GOVT SERVANT

                      4.    ZAHEER AHMED SHAIKH S/O DAVALSAB SHAIKH
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN                      AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. EX-BSF
KATTIMANI

                      5.    KHEDER BI SHAIKH W/O DAVALSAB SHAIKH
                            AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC. NIL
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI             6.    ABDUL ROSOOL MURGOD S/O MUQABOL MURGOD
Date: 2026.02.20            AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. KSRTC DRIVER
16:00:09 +0530


                      7.    KHALEED BASHA S/O BABASAB MEHAR
                            AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
                            ALL ARE R/O BEHIND GURUSIDDESHWAR G.
                            ADDA MOOR SAVIRMATH HUBBALLI.
                                                                   ...PETITIONERS
                      (BY SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE)
                               -2-
                                          NC: 2026:KHC-D:2470
                                     CRL.P No. 100326 of 2023


HC-KAR




AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     HUBBALLI WOMEN PS,
     R/BY ADDL SPP.,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     DHARWAD 580011.

2.   ANJUMBANU W/O MANZOOR ILAHI MEHAR
     (BEFORE MARRIAGE ANJUMBANU
     D/O NOORAHMED MURGOD)
     AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
     OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
     R/O. JAVALI PLOT TIPPU NAGAR,
     OLD HUBBALLI, PIN 580024.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING    TO   QUASH   THE   PROCEEDINGS      IN   (P.   C.   NO.
1702/2018) C.C. NO. 2684/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF III
ADDL.    CJ AND JMFC COURT, HUBBALLI FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC
R/W 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, (IN CRIME NO. 2/2019 WOMEN P.S.
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD) AGAINST           THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
NO. 2 TO 8 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.


       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                       -3-
                                                     NC: 2026:KHC-D:2470
                                             CRL.P No. 100326 of 2023


HC-KAR




                                 ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

1. Heard Sri. M. L. Vanti, learned counsel for the

petitioners, Smt. Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri.

Rajashekhar Burji, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. Petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, with the following prayer:

"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

                  i)         Quash     the        proceedings        in
          (P.C.No.1702/2018)         C.C.No.2684/2019          pending

on the file of III Addl. C J & JMFC Court, Hubballi for the offences punishable U/S 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/w. Sec.149 IPC R/w. 3 & 4 of D.P. Act, (in Crime No.2/2019 Women P.S. Hubballi-Dharwad) against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 8 by allowing this petition.

ii) May pass such other suitable order/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to do complete justice."

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2470

HC-KAR

3. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present petition are as under:

4. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint with Women

Police Station, Hubballi-Dharwad, which was registered in

Crime No.2/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections

498A, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

5. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal

that accused No.1 married with the complainant on

26.04.2018 and at that juncture, Rs.2,00,000/- of cash, 1½

tola chain and ½ tola ring and silver articles were given as

dowry. A sum of Rs.2,50,000/- was spent towards the

marriage expenses and complainant joined the matrimonial

home.

6. Accused Nos.7 and 8 used to visit the house of

the accused Nos.1 to 6 often. About a month later, all the

accused persons started abusing the complainant and

demanded additional dowry by contending that accused

No.1 is having a decent job in Dubai and therefore, to meet

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2470

HC-KAR

expenses, Rs.10,00,000/- and 250 grams of gold was

demanded. The complainant denied the food and she used

to be confined into the house whenever the accused

persons were going out by locking the door from outside.

7. The complainant was working as part-time

lecturer and the salary earned from the said job would also

snatch by the accused persons.

8. It was also alleged that accused persons

threatened that she would be killed by exploding the cooker

and they used to spill the hot oil on her legs.

9. Based on the complaint, police registered the

case against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences

and investigated the matter and filed charge sheet.

10. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the

offences against the accused and registered the criminal

case in C.C. No.2684/2019.

11. The order sheet discloses that accused No.1 is

not served and accused Nos.2 to 8 remained absent before

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2470

HC-KAR

the Trial Court continuously by filing the exemption

application.

12. In the meantime, petitioners herein who are

accused Nos.2 to 8 have approached this Court with the

aforesaid prayer contending that they are no way connected

with the alleged harassment and because of the

employment, accused No.1 is residing in Dubai and

therefore, there is no willful absence of accused No.1 and

sought for quashing the pending proceedings.

13. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for

respondent No.2 contended that trial has not progressed

from the year 2019, on the ground that accused No.1 is not

available and accused Nos.2 to 8 have not co-operated for

the proceeding of the trial.

14. They would further contend that if the petitioners

have got any good case, they may file an application for

discharge and there is no ground made out for quashing of

the complaint and sought for dismissal of the petition.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2470

HC-KAR

15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

16. On such perusal of the material on record, it is

noticed that a dowry harassment case is pending since the

year 2019 without any progress whatsoever.

17. Admittedly, accused No.1 has not appeared

before the Court from the year 2019, and staying in Dubai

and not answering to the summons and the warrant issued

by the Court.

18. Accused Nos.2 to 8, though appeared before the

Court and obtained the bail, but they remained absent

before the Trial Court by filing the exemption application

repeatedly. As such, the trial has not progressed.

19. They have approached this Court and obtained

the order of stay of further proceedings and the trial itself

has not progressed to any extent.

20. Whether at all, the complainant is responsible for

the improper matrimonial relationship or not as contended

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2470

HC-KAR

by the petitioners cannot be decided by this Court at this

stage by holding mini trial.

21. Likewise, if the petitioners have got any valid

defense, they may file necessary application before the Trial

Court seeking discharge.

22. This Court at this stage in a petition challenging

the order taking cognizance and registering the case cannot

hold a mini trial to find out the merits or demerits of the

case.

23. Practically, the grounds urged in the petition do

not make out a case for quashing the pending criminal

proceedings.

24. Further, non-appearance of accused No.1 for a

period of more than seven years, is a factor which per se

makes it clear that the petitioners are somehow interested

in dragging the proceedings rather than proceeding with the

case on merits of the matter.

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2470

HC-KAR

25. Taking note of these aspects of the matter this

Court is of the considered opinion that no grounds are made

out for quashing the pending proceedings.

26. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

SMM / CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9