IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARAWAD Dated the I 8’’ day of April 20 11 :BEFORE: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE : V.JAGANNATHAN BETWEEN: 1. Sri Ibrahim Mohammad Hanif Mulla, Age: 31 years, 0cc: Teacher. 2. Sri Nazboon Mohammad Hanif Mulla, Age: V1ajor. 0cc: Nil. 3. Sri Mohammad Hanif Mulla. Age: Major, 0cc: Cooli. All are residents of Govanakoppa, Taluka Bailahongal. Belgaum District. 4. Smt. Ameena, W/o Mustafa Mokashi. Age: 28 years, Ccc: Household. 5. Sri Mustafa Mokashi, Age: 30 years, Ccc: Business, Both residents of M.K.Hubli. Belgaurn District. 6. Smt. Shakila. W/o Mehboobsab Sollnavar. Age: 30 years, Ccc: Household work, R/o Inamahongal. Savadatti Taluk. 7. Smt. Makkavva, W/o Subani Tahsildar. Age: 38 years, 0cc: Household work. 8. Sri Subani Tahsildar. Age: 42 years, 0cc: Cooli. Both are r/o Govanakoppa, Bailahongala Taluk, Belgaum District. 9. Sri Reharnan Mulla, Age: 35 years, Ccc: Business. 10. Srnt. Guizar, W/o Rhaman Mulla. Age: 32 years, 0cc: Household work. Both are r/o Bailahongala, Belgaum District. Petitioners (By Sri Girish S.Hiremath, Advocate.) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, rept. by its S.P.P. 2. Smt. Mehaboobi 4 Mehababi Mulla, D/o Hatelsab Yadalli, Age: 30 years, 0cc: Teacher, R/o Kotur Village, Taluk & District: Dharawad. Respondents (By Sri Anand K.Navalgimath,HCGP.) Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the complaint filed by R-2 dated 29.3.20 1 1 and also the F.I.R, registered in Crime No, 31/2011 of Dodwad Police Station. This petition coming on for admission this day, the court made the following ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Girish S.Hiremasth and learned Government Pleader Shri Anand K. Navalagimath. who took notice for R-l State. 2. The petitioners are before this court seeking quashing of the proceedings and the F.I,R. which have led to a case being registered in Crime No. 31/2011 of Dodwad Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the l.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first petitioner had given talaci to his wife and in proof of the same, he placed for my perusal the talaqnama dated 10.8.20 10 and on the basis of the said document. the learned counsel sought for quashing of the F.I.R. 4 4. A perusal of the complaint, which is at page-l8, reveals that the complainant has alleged the aforesaid offences being committed by the accused persons and there is no mention of any talaqnama having been given by the first petitioner herein but, on the other hand, the complaint mentions that the first petitioner husband came to the house and threatened the wife. 5. ln the light of the nature of the complaint allegations, the petitioners are at liberty to take necessary defence before the trial court and seek for discharge based on the talaqnama on which they rely, If the trial court comes to the conclusion that the first petitioner had, in faét, given talaqnama to his wife, then the court would proceed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, this court cannot interfere at this stage under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when the complaint allegations indicate the commission of the alleged offences. 5 6. The petition, therefore, is dismissed. This, however, shall not come in the way of the petitioners moving the trial court for discharge based on the contentions put forward as above. Sd! JUDGE ckc/-