Karnataka High Court
Shakila Adam Shaikh vs The State on 10 March, 2025
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498
CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100495 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SHAKILA ADAM SHAIKH,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER,
R/O: 8TH CROSS,
ASAD KHAN SOCIETY,
BELAGAVI - 01.
2. MUZAFFAR ADAM SHAIKH
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: 8TH CROSS,
ASAD KHAN SOCIETY,
BELAGAVI - 01.
3. SUMAYA MUZAFAR SHAIKH,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER,
R/O: 8TH CROSS,
ASAD KHAN SOCIETY,
BELAGAVI - 01.
Digitally signed by
ASHPAK KASHIMSA
MALAGALADINNI 4. ATHAR ADAM SHAIKH,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
Dharwad
R/O: 8TH CROSS,
ASAD KHAN SOCIETY,
BELAGAVI - 01.
5. AYISHA ATHAR SHAIKH,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER,
R/O: 8TH CROSS,
ASAD KHAN SOCIETY,
BELAGAVI - 01.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ANWARALI D. NADAF, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498
CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025
AND:
1. THE STATE, BY WOMEN PS,
BELAGAVI,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE AT DHARWAD HIGH COURT,
DHARWAD - 580 011.
2. ALIYA KOUSAR
W/O. MOHAMMEDWAIS SHAIKH,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER,
R/O: PLOT NO.60/A,
7TH CROSS, VEERBHADRA NAGAR,
BELAGAVI - 590 016.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S.
528 OF BNSS, 2023) SEEKING TO, QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR IN
CRIME NO. 13/2023 AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN
C.C.NO. 2936/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
IIND JMFC, BELAGAVI AGAINST THE PETITIONER 1 TO 5/ACCUSED
NO.2 TO 6. GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF AS THIS HON'BLE COURT
DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRESENT CASE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by petitioners -accused nos.2 to
6 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C (Section 528 of BNSS)
praying to quash the complaint, FIR in crime No.13/2023
and proceedings in C.C.No.2936/2023 registered for
offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498
CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025
34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”
for brevity) pending on the file of the JMFC II Court,
Belagavi so far as petitioners -accused Nos.2 to 6 are
concerned.
2. The case of respondent No.2 -complainant in
brief is as under;
Respondent No.2 is married with accused No.1 on
30.08.2021 and thereafter, she has started residing in her
husband house along with petitioners. Petitioners use to
abuse her in filthy language and use to say she was not
taught proper cooking and doing work in the home. It is
further alleged that when respondent No.2 -complainant
was pregnant and they did not take care of her, made her
to work, kept her hungry and physically tortured her. The
complaint has been sent to her parent’s house when she
was 07 months pregnant and she gave birth to female
child on 16.07.2022. Thereafter, accused No.1 and
petitioners did not come to her parent’s house to take her
and her child to her husband house. On basis of said
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498
CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025
information, the case came to be registered in Crime
No.13/2023 of Women Police Station Belagavi for offenses
punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC.
The Police after investigation have filed charge sheet
against petitioners for offences punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC. On basis of said charge
sheet, the case has been registered against petitioners in
C.C.No.2936/2023 for offences punishable under Sections
498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of IPC and it is pending on the
file of the JMFC II Court, Belagavi. The proceedings of
said case have been sought to be quashed in this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and
learned AGA for respondent No.1 -State. Inspite of service
of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and
unrepresented.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend
that allegations made against petitioners are general
omnibus allegations and on that point he placed reliance
on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498
CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs State of Bihar
& Ors1. He further submits that respondent No.2 –
complainant has been sent to her parents house when she
was 07 months pregnant and she gave birth to female
child on 16.07.2022 and complaint has been filed on
10.02.2023. There is delay in filing the complaint and the
delay has not been explained in the complaint. On perusal
of the charge sheet materials, offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC is not attracted. On that point he
placed reliance on the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench
of this Court rendered in the case of Prakash S/o
Venkatray Raikar and others Vs The State of
Karnataka by Yellapura P.S and Another2. He further
submits that the said giving of life threat by petitioners
does not attracted offences punishable under Sections 504
and 506 of IPC and on that point he placed reliance on the
decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court rendered
in the case of Mohammed Ataulla A and others Vs The
1
Reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599
2
Rendered in Crl.P.No.10207/2021 decided on 08.04.2022
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498
CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025
State of Karnataka by Konaje Police Station and
another3. He further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of State of Harayana and Others Vs Ch.
Bhajan Lal and Others4 has given guidelines for
considering the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and
out of them, guidelines Nos. 1, 5 and 7 are relied by
learned counsel. He further submits that proceedings
against petitioners are abuse of law. With these, he prays
to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned AGA for respondent No.1 –
State would contend that on reading of the complaint filed
by respondent No.2, there are specific allegations of ill-
treatment, torture and harassment by petitioners to her.
Charge sheet materials show prima facie case against
petitioners for offences alleged against them. With these,
he prays for dismissal of the petition.
3
Rendered in Crl.P.No.3768/2022 decided on 05.10.2020
4
Reported in AIR 1992 SC 604
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498
CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025
6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court has
perused the charge sheet materials and other materials
placed on record.
7. The marriage of respondent No.1 with accused
No.1 had taken place on 03.08.2021. After marriage,
respondent No.2 has started residing in her husband
house along with petitioners and her husband. The
accusation of assault is against accused No.1 who is
husband of respondent No.2. There are no allegations of
any assault by petitioners as seen in Cl.No.17 of the
charge sheet. Therefore, the offence punishable under
Section 323 of IPC is not attracted against petitioners.
The only allegation against petitioners in the complaint is
that they gave life threat as complainant has made
suspicion against her co-sister. In the case relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of
Mohammed(Supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
has observed in para No.7 as under:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498
CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025“7. Likewise, the threats alleged to have
been issued against respondent No.2/complainant
also do not attract the ingredient of sections 504 or
506 IPC. In order to constitute offences under these
provisions, the accused ought to have intentionally
insulted or given provocation to the complainant or
any other persons intending or knowing it to be likely
that such provocation will cause him to break public
peace.”
On perusal of the complaint and FIR, there are allegations
whatsoever of criminal intimidated by petitioners as to
render them liable for prosecution under Sections 504 and
506 of IPC.
8. The allegations of harassment and ill-treatment
alleged against petitioners are general and omnibus
allegations. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar(supra) has observed as under;
“11. Before we delve into greater detail on
the nature and content of allegations made, it
becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of
Section 498-AIPC was aimed at preventing cruelty
committed upon a woman by her husband and her
in-laws, by facilitating rapid State intervention.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498
CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025However, it is equally true, that in recent times,
matrimonial litigation in the country has also
increased significantly and there is a greater
disaffection and friction surrounding the institution
of marriage, now, more than ever. This has
resulted in an increased tendency to employ
provisions such as Section 498-A IPC as
instruments to settle personal scores against the
husband and his relatives.
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. it was
observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21)“21.It would be relevant at this statge to take
note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in
G.V Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad wherein also in a
matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the
High Court should have quashed the complaint
arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all
family members has been roped into the
matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set
aside. Their Lordship observed therein with which
we entirely agree that:(SCC p.698, para 12)’12. … There has been an outburst of
matrimonial dispute in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the main
purpose of which is to enable the young
couple to settle down in life and live
peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498
CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025suddenly erupt which often assume serious
proportions resulting in commission of
heinous crimes in which elders of the family
are also involved with the result that those
who could have counselled and brought
about rapprochement are rendered helpless
on their being arrayed as accused in the
criminal case. There are many other reasons
which need not be mentioned here for not
encouraging matrimonial litigation so that
the parties may ponder over their defaults
and terminate their disputes amicably by
mutual agreement instead of fighting it out
in a court of law where it takes years and
years to conclude and in that process the
parties lose their “young” days in chasing
their cases in different courts.’The view taken by the Judges in this matter was
that the courts would not encourage such disputes.
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role
attributed to the appellant-accused, it would be unjust
if the appellants are forced to go through the
tribulations of a trial i.e. general and omnibus
allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the
relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to
undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this Court in
varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4498
CRL.P No. 100495 of 2025eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the
accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be
discouraged.”
9. On perusal of averments of the complaint and
statements of witnesses, allegations against petitioners of
harassment and ill-treatment are general and omnibus
allegations. Therefore, the proceedings against petitioners
are abuse of process of law.
10. In the result, the following
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings against petitioners in
C.C.No.2936/2023 pending on the file of the
JMFC II Court, Belagavi are quashed so far as
petitioners -accused Nos.2 to 6 are
concerned.
Sd/-
(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
JUDGE
DSP/CT-ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28