Karnataka High Court
Bhaja Bee And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 18 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3168
CRL.P No. 201660 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201660 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. KHAJA BEE W/O RAJ MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/AT WARD NO.15, PINJARAVADI,
MANVI-584 123, DIST. RAICHUR.
2. AJIMIYA @ SHAIK RAJAN ALI
S/O RAJ MOHAMMED,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/AT #83, KARKIHALLI, KONCHAPLI,
DEODURGA-584 111.
Digitally signed
by RENUKA 3. JILANI S/O RAJ MOHAMMED,
Location: AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
HIGH COURT R/AT WARD NO. 15, PINJARAVADI,
OF MANVI-584 123, DIST. RAICHUR.
KARNATAKA
4. M. HUSEENABASHA S/O MAHIBUB ALI,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER,
R/AT WARD NO.09, KULKARNI COLONY,
NEAR YANKANNAGADDE CAMP, MANVI TALUKA,
SIRWAR, DIST. RAICHUR-584 129.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. LAKSHMI G.E., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3168
CRL.P No. 201660 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPT. BY JALAHALLI POLICE STATION,
REP. BY ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585 107.
2. SMT. SHAKEELA W/O CHANDPASH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/AT KULKARNI ONI, YANKANADODDI SIRWAR,
C/O. GALAG, TQ. DEODURGA,
DIST. RAICHUR-584 116.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS/CHARGE-SHEET IN CRIME NO.115/2022 OF
JALAHALLI P.S. AND IN CC NO.322/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S. 109, 323, 498(A), 504, 506 AND 34 IPC AND
3, 6, 4 OF DP ACT 1961, PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVADURGA, AT RAICHUR
DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
Heard Smt.Lakshmi G.E., learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3168
CRL.P No. 201660 of 2024
HC-KAR
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 served in the matter and remained
absent.
2. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with
the following prayer:
“Praying to quash the proceedings/charge-
sheet in Crime No.115/2022 of Jalahalli P.S. and in
C.C.No.322/2024 for the offences punishable u/S.
109, 323, 498(A), 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and 3, 6,
4 of DP Act 1961, pending on the file of Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC at Devadurga, at Raichur dist., in
the interest of justice and equity.”
3. Facts in brief for disposal of the present petition
are as under:
Upon the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 –
Smt.Shakeela, Jalhalli police, Raichur registered a case on
10.09.2022 in Crime No.115/2022 for the offences
punishable under Sections 109, 323, 498-A, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3168
CRL.P No. 201660 of 2024HC-KAR
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Police after thorough
investigation filed a charge sheet. Petitioners are the
accused Nos.2 to 5.
4. It is the contention of the petitioners that they
are no way connected with the alleged offences and they
have been falsely implicated in the matrimonial dispute
that occurred between accused No.1 and respondent No.2
case and sought for quashing the pending proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating
the grounds urged in the petition contended that the
petitioners are no way connected with the alleged
matrimonial dispute between accused No.1 and
respondent No.2 and being the relatives of accused No.1,
they have been falsely implicated in the case and sought
for allowing the petition.
6. She would further contend that accused
No.5/petitioner No.4 did not share the common roof along
with accused No.1 and complainant, which has to be
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3168
CRL.P No. 201660 of 2024
HC-KAR
considered and atleast as against accused No.5, who
petitioner No.4, petition needs to be allowed.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 supports filing of the charge
sheet and taking cognizance against the petitioners herein
by contending that prima facie materials are collected by
the Investigation Agency to proceed with the case as
against all the petitioners.
8. He would further contend that mere fact that
the accused No.5/petitioner No.4 is residing separately
itself would not be sufficient enough to allow the petition
as against him and sought for dismissal of the petition in
toto.
9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously.
10. On such perusal of the material on record, it is
seen that petitioner Nos.1 to 3, who are accused No.2 to 4
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3168
CRL.P No. 201660 of 2024
HC-KAR
did share the common residence and they were residing
under the common roof along with accused No.1 and
respondent No.2. Whereas, accused No.5, who is
petitioner No.4 is admittedly residing separately in a
separate house in Manvi taluka, Yankannagadde Camp and
did not share common roof at any point of time. Further,
there is no specific allegation against accused
No.5/petitioner No.4 in the alleged incident except the
omnibus and general allegations.
11. Thus, following the principles of law enunciated
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam vs. the State Of Bihar reported in
(2022) 6 SCC 599, pending criminal proceedings against
accused No.5/petitioner No.4 needs to be dismissed.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) Criminal petition is allowed in part.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3168
CRL.P No. 201660 of 2024
HC-KAR
b) Criminal petition as against accused Nos.2
to 4/petitioner Nos.1 to 3 is dismissed.
c) Petition is allowed insofar as accused
No.5/petitioner No.4 is concerned and
pending criminal proceedings in
C.C.No.322/2024 (Crime No.115/2022 of
Jalhalli Police Station, Raichur), on the file
of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devadurga,
as against accused No.5/petitioner No.4
stands quashed.
d) It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the
matter in respect of the remaining accused.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SRT
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
CT: AK