[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Salman M Sindgikar And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 21 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
WP No. 202446 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 202446 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MR.SALMAN M SINDGIKAR
S/O MOHAMMED SHAFI
AGE 31 YEARS
R/A HOUSE NO. LIG 103,
HUDCO COLONY JALANAGAR,
BIJAPUR, BIJAPUR KARNATAKA-586101.
2. MRS. RUKHSANA BEGUM SINDGIKAR
AGE 65 YEARS
W/O MOHAMMED SHAFI
R/A HOUSE NO. LIG 103,
BAGALKOT ROAD, HUDCO COLONY
JAL NAGAR, BIJAPUR,
KARNATAKA-586101.
Digitally signed by
SHIVALEELA 3. MR. SUHAIL M SINDGIKAR
DATTATRAYA UDAGI
Location: HIGH AGE 29 YEARS
COURT OF S/O MOHAMMED SHAFI
KARNATAKA
R/A HOUSE NO. LIG 103,
BAGALKOT ROAD, HUDCO COLONY
JAL NAGAR, BIJAPUR,
KARNATAKA-586101.
4. MR. ABU UMEER M SINDGIKAR
S/O MOHAMMED SHAFI
AGE 30 YEARS
R/A HOUSE NO. LIG 103,
BAGALKOT ROAD, HUDCO COLONY
JAL NAGAR, BIJAPUR,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
WP No. 202446 of 2024
HC-KAR
KARNATAKA-586101.
5. MRS. RUHA JABEEN SINDGIKAR
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
C/O ABU UMEER SINDGIKAR
R/A HOUSE NO. LIG 103,
BAGALKOT ROAD, HUDCO COLONY
JAL NAGAR, BIJAPUR,
KARNATAKA-586101.
6. SMT. BADRUNNISA ALIYAZ BADAMI
C/O ALIYAZ M BADAMI
AGE 37 YEARS
R/A PLOT 64 WARD NO.32
EAST 1ST MAIN 5TH CROSS
BOUXITE ROAD, KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT
BELGAUM NEHRU NAGAR
BELAGAVI KARNATAKA-590001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. P. P. HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MALIK PASHA MOUZAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
VIJAYAPURA WOMEN POLICE STATION
REPORESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARAGA-585101.
2. SMT. SHAGUPATA
W/O SLMAN SINDAGIKAR
AGE 27 YEARS
R/O HUDCO COLONY
JALANAGAR VIJAYPURA
KARNATAKA 586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. S. S. MAMADAPUR ADV., FOR R2)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
WP No. 202446 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC 482 OF CR.P.C
AND 528 BNSS ACT, PRAYING TO 1) ISSUE WRIT OF
CRTIORARI QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.
3939/2024 ARISING OUT OF FIR IN CRIME NO.116/2023 OF
VIJAYAPURA WOMEN POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 323, 354, 504
506, 149 OF IPC READ WITH SECTION 4 OF DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC III VIJAYAPURA, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDER, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings
against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 in
C.C.No.3939/2024, arising out of Crime No.116/2023
registered by Women Police, Vijayapura, for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 504 and 506
r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
Act, pending on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and
JMFC-III, Vijayapur.
2. The abridged facts of the case are, respondent
No.2 married petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 24.02.2019.
At the time of marriage, respondent No.2's parents gave
10 tolas of gold, 5 tolas of silver and Rs.5,00,000/- cash
as dowry to petitioner No.1. Thereafter, she started
residing at her Matrimonial home along with accused
Nos.1 to 6. After one month from the date of marriage,
the petitioners started to harass her both physically and
mentally and assaulted her by demanding additional dowry
of Rs.20,00,000/-. Further, petitioner No.3 i.e. brother-in-
law of respondent No.2 used to watch her while she was
bathing and touching her inappropriately. Later, on
13.12.2022 at 10:00 a.m. the petitioners gave life threat
to her, as she failed to get a car and register the house
situated in Belagum in the name of her husband. Finally
on 25.03.2023, they threw her out from the matrimonial
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
home. Hence, she lodged a complaint on 14.06.2023
before respondent No.1-Police against the petitioners
3. On the strength of said complaint, FIR came to
be registered in Crime No.116/2023 dated 14.06.2023
against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences.
Subsequently, respondent No.1-Police conducted
investigation and laid charge sheet against the petitioners
for the aforementioned offences by arraying them as
accused Nos.1 to 6. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 6 preferred this petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
Senior counsel for the petitioners contended that
petitioner No.1-husband of respondent No.2 issued Talaq
notice to her initially on 24.12.2022, subsequently on
23.01.2023 and finally on 22.02.2023, as such, their
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
marriage dissolved as per the Muslim Personal Law.
Thereafter, petitioner No.1 gave a representation to the
Station House Officer at Belagavi on 27.01.2023 by
informing that he had issued Talaq to respondent No.2.
Accordingly, the said Police issued an endorsement to
petitioner No.1 to resolve their dispute in the Family
Court. He further contended that, at no point of time, the
petitioners' harassed respondent No.2, as claimed by her.
6. According to learned Senior counsel, petitioner
No.1 is an Engineer, petitioner No.2, being his mother,
residing along with petitioner No.4 at Hubballi, petitioner
Nos.5 and 6 are no way concerned to the alleged incident
and they are implicated in the alleged crime out of
vengeance. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and learned
counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the petition by
contending that the petitioners approached this Court for
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
relief of quashing the FIR/Proceedings in
W.P.No.200392/2024 and the same was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order 12.02.2024. Despite, without any
changed circumstance, the petitioners once again filed this
petition for similar relief. As such, the petition is not
maintainable.
8. He further contended that, on perusal of the
complaint and charge sheet materials, it is categorically
stated by respondent No.2 that after one month from the
date of marriage, these petitioners harassed her both
physically and mentally for additional dowry and to
register a house situated at Belagavi in the name of
petitioner No.1. Additionally, petitioner No.3 misbehaved
with respondent No.2. In such circumstance, there are
prima facie materials against the petitioners. Accordingly,
they pray to dismiss the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
respective parties and documents made available on
record.
10. On perusal of the complaint and charge sheet
materials, respondent No.2 has categorically stated, after
one month from the date of marriage, the petitioners
harassed her both physically and mentally and assaulted
for additional dowry of Rs.20,00,000/-, despite receiving
10 tolas of gold, 5 tolas of silver and Rs.5,00,000/- cash at
the time of marriage. Respondent No.2 categorically
stated in the complaint that on 13.12.2022 and
25.03.2023, her husband-petitioner No.1 and other
petitioners abused her and threw her out of the
matrimonial home.
11. On careful perusal of the statement of
respondent No.2, her father-CW.4 and her mother-CW.5
along with 164 statement of respondent No.2, there is a
clear allegation made against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 i.e.
husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Petitioner
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
No.1, being the prime accused in this case, allegedly
received dowry at the time of marriage and thereafter,
harassed respondent No.2 along with others for additional
dowry and threw her out from the matrimonial home.
12. Petitioner No.2, being the mother-in-law of
respondent No.2, residing along with petitioner No.1, there
are prima facie allegations forthcoming against her in the
complaint and the statement of the witnesses. It is
specifically stated in 164 statement that, petitioner No.3
i.e. accused No.3 used to watch respondent No.2 while she
was bathing and also touch her inappropriately. As such,
in my considered view, there are prima facie materials
placed by the prosecution against petitioner Nos.1 to
3/accused Nos.1 to 3. Mere issuance of Talaq notice
cannot be a shield/defence to the alleged illegal act
committed by petitioner Nos.1 to 3.
13. As far as petitioner Nos.4 to 6/accused Nos.4 to
6 are concerned, petitioner No.4 being the elder brother of
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
petitioner No.1, petitioner No.5 being the wife of petitioner
No.4, residing separately at Belagavi and petitioner No.6
being the married sister of petitioner No.1, residing along
with her husband separately at Vijayapura. Additionally,
on perusal of the complaint, 164 statement of respondent
No.2 and statement of witnesses, except some vague and
omnibus allegations, there are no specific allegations are
made against them.
14. In such circumstance, 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
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
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 with the sole object of involving
certain individuals in a criminal charge, more particularly
when a prosecution arise from a matrimonial dispute.
15. 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
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
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.
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.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
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."
16. In the instant case, a bare perusal of FIR and
charge sheet materials clearly shows that the allegations
made by respondent No.2 against petitioner Nos.4 to
6/accused Nos.4 to 6 are vague and omnibus without
providing any specific details or described any particular
instance of harassment. She has not mentioned the time,
date, place or a manner in which the alleged harassment
occurred or the details of the nature of demand or its
particulars. Therefore, the FIR lacks concrete and precise
allegations. The term "cruelty" cannot be established
without specific instance. The same weakens the case of
the prosecution and casts serious doubt on the probability
of the version of respondent No.2. The mere general
allegations of harassment without pointing out the specific
details would not be sufficient to continue criminal
proceedings against any person.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
17. 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
to prevent miscarriage of justice and abuse of process of
Court.
18. On overall perusal of the entire charge sheet
materials, in my considered view, prima facie case is made
out against petitioner Nos.1 to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3.
However, there are no concrete and specific allegations
forthcoming in the charge sheet against petitioner Nos.4 to
6/accused Nos.4 to 6. In that view of the matter,
continuation of criminal proceeding against petitioner
Nos.4 to 6/accused Nos.4 to 6 is abuse of process of
Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed in part.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1730
HC-KAR
ii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.1
to 3/accused Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed and
the proceedings against them shall
continue.
iii. The petition in respect of petitioner Nos.4
to 6/accused Nos.4 to 6 is allowed.
iv. The proceedings in respect of petitioner
Nos.4 to 6/accused Nos.4 to 6 in
C.C.No.3939/2024, arising out of Crime
No.116/2023 registered by Women Police,
Vijayapura, for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 323, 354, 504 and
506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Prohibition Act, pending on the file
of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-III,
Vijayapur, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
HKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18
CT/BH
