Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/6027/2026 of AKMAL PASHA KHAN Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010276262026 NC: 2026:KHC:52165 CRL.P No. 6027 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6027 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: AKMAL PASHA KHAN S/O
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6027 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
AKMAL PASHA KHAN
S/O LATE PYAREJAN,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5TH CROSS,
MAHENDRA SHOWROOM OPPOSITE,
AKRAM TOWN, TUMKURU - 577 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN B. RYAKHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 244.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2.
SMT. SALMA BHANU
W/O AKMAL PASHA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT V. V LAYOUT INFRONT OF MADEENA MASJID, YATTAGADAHALLI ROAD, MANDYA CITY, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 244.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGHARISH G S., HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. ANUSHA DEVI H., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C C NO.120/2026 FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENSES PUNISHABLE U/S (85), 352, 115(2), 351
(2) OF BNS ACT 2023 AND DOWRY PROVISION ACT 1961 AND
REGISTERED BY THE WOMEN POLICE STATION AT MANDYA WHICH
IS PENDING BEFORE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JNR DVN) AND
JMFC COUT AT MANDYA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.120/2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 85, 352, 115(2), 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the complainant, in her alleged statement before the police, which is annexed to the charge sheet, has given a clean chit to the petitioner/husband and even some of the witnesses cited in the charge sheet have not stated anything
HC-KAR
against the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that, there was no scope for filing the charge sheet against the petitioner and that the continuation of the prosecution or the trial would be a futile exercise.
4. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that, though the charge sheet contains statements of some of the witnesses in favour of the petitioner, some of the other witnesses cited in the charge sheet have given statements supporting the contents of the complaint.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would also submit that, some of the witnesses cited in the complaint have supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the matter requires to be tried.
6. It is further submitted that, in the complaint, there are seven persons named as accused.
7. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
HC-KAR
8. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No.2 are residing separately. Merely because the charge sheet contains statements of some of the witnesses which would indicate that the alleged incident has not taken place, that itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings, particularly when some of the statements of the other witnesses cited in the charge sheet indicate the commission of the offences.
9. Whose version is correct and whose version is incorrect has to be decided after trial.
10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
11. This Court has not entered into the merits or demerits of the contentions of both the parties relating to the alleged incident and the same has to be considered based on the materials to be placed before the Trial Court.
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
AM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22