Allowed

Smt. Julekhabi W/O Miyajan Inamdar W/O Miyajan Inamadar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023CRL.P/100312/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings against petitioners under sections 498A and 506 IPC. The court held that general omnibus allegations against in-laws residing separately, without specific instances of involvement, are insufficient to sustain criminal proceedings. Proceedings under C.C. No. 982/2019 were quashed.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 982/2019 pending at JMFC-II, Belagavi are quashed insofar as they concern the petitioners.

Smt. Julekhabi W/O Miyajan Inamdar W/O Miyajan… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100312 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. JULEKHABI W/O MIYAJAN INAMDAR AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. #302, MARUTI GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590006.

¶10

SMT. SHAHEEN W/O MOHAMMED ILIYAS QADRI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. PLOT NO.14 ,SY. NO. 1013/A, 7^TH CROSS, NEW VEERBHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶11

SMT. PARVEEN W/O SAYYED AFTAB AHMED QADRI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. #14, 7^TH CROSS, NEW VEERBHADRA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPIDate: 2023.11.20 11:49:19 +0530

¶13

SMT. MUNSHERA W/O MOHAMMED ILIYAS PEERZADE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. H.NO. 873, ARALIKATTI DESHPANDE GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.

¶14

SMT. SHEHAZADI W/O SHANAWAZ INAMDAR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. WARD NO.44, CCB NO.1275, LABBUAJ MANZIL, SHAHU NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590010.

¶15

… PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. Z.M. HATTARKI & SRI. ARZOO M. MULLA, ADVOCATES)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI CITY, R/BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

¶21

SMT. NAJREENBANO W/O JAVEED QADRI INAMDAR, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD, R/O. MARUTI GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590006.

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.982/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II JMFC BELAGAVI AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 6.

¶25

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners have sought quashing of entire proceedings in C.C.No.982/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity) pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi.

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶30

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

¶31

Respondent No.2 has filed First Information before the Mahila Police Station, Belagavi and a case came to be registered in Crime No.37/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC against these petitioners (Accused Nos.2 to 6) and another (accused No.1). Accused No.1 is the husband, accused No.2 is the mother-in-law and accused Nos.3 to 6 are the sisters-in-law of respondent No.2. The police after investigation have filed charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. A case came to be registered against the petitioners and another in C.C.No.982/2019 for the aforesaid offences and it is pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi. The

¶32

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

¶33

petitioners (accused Nos.2 to 6) have sought quashing of the proceedings of criminal case.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶35

contend that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house on 14.12.2016 and residing in her husband’s house. The husband of respondent No.2 was residing at Dubai. Respondent No.2 has not filed any complaint against the accused persons immediately after she went to her parents’ house on 14.12.2016. The allegations against these petitioners are only omnibus allegations. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are married having children and they are residing separately in the house of their respective husbands’. There is no specific allegation against these petitioners in the complaint. The allegation made in the averments of the complaint and statement of complainant, is against her husband and complaint came to be filed as the husband of respondent No.2 has married another girl on 11.06.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

¶37

the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs State of Bihar & Ors¹ . With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶38

Per-contra , learned HCGP would contend that

¶39

on perusal of averments of the complaint, there is a specific allegation against the petitioners for harassing respondent No.2 and giving life threat to her. On perusal of the charge-sheet material, there is prima-facie case against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them. There are no grounds for quashing of the criminal proceedings against these petitioners. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶40

The marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 took place on 26.04.2012. After the marriage, respondent No.2 went to her husband’s house and after one month of the marriage, it is alleged in the complaint that her husband, mother-in-law and others started assaulting her and did not give food to her properly and

¶41

1 2022 SCC Online 162.

¶42

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

¶43

her husband went to Dubai without intimating her and he used to come once in two years for a month and used to harass her to bring the cash and jewelers. The family members of husband of respondent No.2, abused her stating that she is not begetting children and sent her to the matrimonial house on 14.12.2016. It is further alleged in the complaint that her husband and his family members used to give life threat to her over phone and she lodged the criminal proceedings and her husband did not appear in the said case. It is further stated in the complaint that on 11.06.2019 her husband after returning from Dubai, married another girl. Thereafter, husband of complainantrespondent No.2, his mother and sisters give life threat to her. Inconsonance with the averments of the complaint, the father, mother and elder sister of respondent No.2 have given their statements.

¶44

Admittedly, respondent No.2 is residing in her

¶45

father’s house from 14.12.2016. Prior to that, the husband of respondent No.2 went to Dubai and he used to come to

¶46

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

¶47

India once in two years. Even though it is alleged in the complaint that there is abuse and assault on respondent No.2 by her husband, mother-in-law and sister of her husband, no complaint has been filed by her after she went to her father’s house on 14.12.2016. The other allegation in the complaint is that the petitioners have given life threat to her. No place, dated and time is mentioned regarding the said incident. The said allegation against these petitioners is only omnibus allegations. Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are married having children and they are residing separately in the house of their respective husbands.

¶48

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors ( supra ) has observed as under;

¶49

12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true,

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

¶52

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 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

¶53

17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 it was also observed thar:-

¶54

“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”

¶55

18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding

¶56

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

¶57

against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

¶58

The allegation against these petitioners is by

¶59

way of general omnibus allegation made in the course of matrimonial dispute. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners, it would be unjust if the petitioners 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. In view of that above, the proceedings against these petitioners in C.C.No.982/2019 pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi are requires to be quashed. In the result, the following;

¶60

ORDER

¶61