[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Ilyas S/O Ibrahimsab ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103488 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMAD ILYAS S/O IBRAHIMSAB DEVARMANI
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. 7TH CROSS IBRAHIMPUR ONI,
OLD HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI DIST. DHARWAD.
2. SAHIRABANU W/O IBRAHIMSAB DEVARMANI
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWORK,
R/O. 7TH CROSS IBRAHIMPUR ONI,
OLD HUBBALLI, TQ. HUBBALLI DIST. DHARWAD.
3. SAJEEDA W/O ABDUL KADER SONOR
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWORK,
R/O. MANTUR ROAD, MULALLI BLOCK
TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
4. FARIDA W/O TAZUDDIN RANEBENNUR
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK,
KATTIMANI R/O. VISHAL NAGAR, GUDDIHALLA ROAD,
TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
5. RASHEEDA W/O JAMEERHAMAD AMBADAGATTI
KATTIMANI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK,
Date: 2026.02.26
17:43:46 +0530 R/O. KELLADAR ONI, TQ. BAILHONGAL,
DIST. BELGAUM.
6. NAZEER S/O ALLABAKSH GOUDIWALE
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. YELLAPUR ONI, OLD HUBBALLI,
TQ. HUBBALLI DIST. DHARWAD.
7. BASHEERAHMED S/O RAJESAB JALAGAR
AGE. 53 YEARS, OCC. RAILWAY EMPLOYEE,
R/O. TABIB LAND, 3RD CROSS MADINA MASJID,
TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022
HC-KAR
8. SHAHEENA W/O BASHEERAHMED JALAGAR
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOSE WORK
R/O. TABIB LAND, 3RD CROSS MADINA MASJID,
TQ. HUBLI, DIST. DHARWAD.
9. MOHAMMADHASIM S/O DONGRISAB MAKANDHAR
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. GARDEN PETHA, TQ. HUBLI,
DIST. DHARWAD.
10. KURSHEED W/O MOHAMMAD DAFEDAR
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WORK,
R/O. KESHWAPUR, TQ. HUBLI,
DIST. DHARWAD.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HUBLI-580001
ALSO REP BY. SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DHARWAD. HUBBALLI DHARWAD WOMEN P.S.
2. FARZANA W/O MOHAMMAD ILYAS DEVARMANI,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. TAILORING AND BEAUTICIAN,
R/O. DODDAMANI COLONY,
NEAR BENDIGERI POLICE STATION,
TQ. HUBALI, DIST. DHARWAD - 580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. 1973, SEEKING TO SET ASIDE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
RENDERED BY THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBLI IN
CRIME NO. 11/2019 AND (NOW REGISTERED AS C.C.NO. 311/2020)
TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498(A), 323, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND 3 AND 4 DOWRY
PROHIBITION ACT IN SO FAR PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 10
ARE CONCERNED.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
CRL.P No. 103488 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri.Praveen Y. Devareddiyavara, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Prashant
Mathapati, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Petition came to be admitted by order dated
03.07.2023.
3. Petitioner herein are accused Nos.1 to 10 and have
filed the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the
following prayer:
"Under the circumstances, it is most humbly prayed
that this Hon'ble Court may be set aside entire
proceedings rendered by the III Addl. Civil Judge and
JMFC., Hubli in Crime No.11 of 2019 and (Now
Registered as C.C.No.311/2020) taking cognizance of
the offence punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504,
506, 34 of IPC and 3 and 4 Dowry Prohibition Act in so
far Petitioners/Accused No.1 to 10 are concerned".
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
HC-KAR
4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the
petition are as under:
4.1. Based on the private complaint filed by respondent
No.2 herein, there was a direction referring the matter to Women
Police Station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to register the
case and investigate the matter and file appropriate report.
4.2. Based on the said order, a case came to be
registered in MAG Crime No.11/2019 on 19.02.2019 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.
5. Police after registering the case, thoroughly
investigated the matter and filed charge sheet.
6. Column No.17 of the charge sheet would make it
clear that marriage of respondent No.2 took place with accused
No.1 on 11.12.2011 at Hazrat Mangalshavali Shadihaal
Govimohalla, Hubballi and sum of Rs.1,85,000/- was paid as
dowry apart from gold and silver ornaments worth
Rs.4,80,000/-.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
HC-KAR
7. There was a happy married life for a brief period and
thereafter, respondent No.2 became pregnant. At that juncture,
there was a demand for additional dowry and there was physical
and mental harassment imparted to respondent No.2 by all the
petitioners herein.
8. Necessary documents have been collected apart from
recording the statement of the independent witness by
Investigation Officer before filing the charge sheet which would
prima facie indicate the commission of the aforesaid offences by
the petitioners.
9. On receipt of the charge sheet materials, learned
Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and
issued summons to the petitioners.
10. Said order is called in question, in this petition, on
following grounds:
The respondent no.2 has filed the complaint alleging
that the petitioner no.1 to 10 has assaulted her and
tortured her physically and mentally but there is
neither MLC Report nor any doctor report and it can
be clearly found that the purpose was to harass
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
HC-KAR
petitioner no.1 to 10 and also amount to abuse of
judicial process.
There is a delay of more than 7 years in lodging the
information and FIR as to the allegations against the
petitioners is not properly explained with any reason
by the respondents.
In the complaint of respondent No.2 there are no
specific allegations against the petitioner no.1 to 10 it
clearly shows that with the intention to defame and
abuse the petitioners has made numerus baseless
allegations against the petitioners without any proof of
evidence.
There is a Civil Suit bearing O.S.No.36/2018 is
pending in the Principal District Family Court, Hubli
filed by the petitioner no.1 against the respondent
no.2 for divorce and for the purpose of taking undue
advantage in the said case this false complaint is filed
against them.
The complaint and the FIR even if they are read in
their entirety, do not link to the offence punishable
under section 498A of IPC. There is no semblance of
allegation that would touch upon the ingredients as
needed for the offence punishable under section 498A
of IPC and it is admitted by the respondent no.2
herself that she is residing with her parents.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
HC-KAR
On perusal of the complaint indicates that the
allegation against the petitioner no.1 to 10 for the
offences under section 498A and section 3,4, of Dowry
Prohibition Act are general and sweeping. No specific
incident dates or details of any incident have been
mentioned in the complaint.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the
grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that there is
harassment by petitioner No.1 - husband and not by other
petitioners and sought for allowing the petition in part.
12. He would also contend that material on record would
not directly or indirectly form nexus between petitioner Nos.2 to
10 insofar as present charges are concerned and sought for
allowing the petition.
13. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2
would support the impugned order taking cognizance and
proceeding with the criminal case.
14. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused
the material on record meticulously.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
HC-KAR
15. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
crystal clear that there is no dispute that petitioner No.1 married
respondent No.2.
16. Prima facie materials collected by the investigation
agency in the form of statements of the charge sheet witnesses
and panchanama would establish that there was a demand for
dowry at the time of the marriage. Assuming that those articles
given at the time of marriage are customary in nature, there was
a subsequent demand for the dowry. Material on record also
indicate that there is a physical and mental harassment when
respondent No.2 was pregnant.
17. Prima facie materials also include the role played by
each of the petitioners in the incident. Whether at all the
petitioners are connected in the incident or not can only be
established after the full-fledged trial.
18. At this stage of consideration of petition under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. the material available on record in the
form of charge sheet, this Court does not find any good grounds
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2812
HC-KAR
to quash the pending proceedings not only in respect of
petitioner No.1 but also in respect of other petitioners.
19. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that
maintenance ordered by the duly constituted Court is also not
paid by respondent No.1 and there are huge arrears of
maintenance.
20. Taking note of all these aspects of the matter,
following:
ORDER
i. Petition is dismissed.
ii. However, all the defences available to the
petitioners are kept open to be urged in the
pending trial in accordance with law.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
KAV
CT-CMU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 107
