Allowed

Parveen Banu W/O Sardar Sab v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Oct 2023CRL.P/100897/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506, and 34 IPC. The Court held that allegations against petitioners were general and omnibus, with no specific role attributed, rendering further proceedings an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No.794/2021 registered for offences under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC stood quashed.

Parveen Banu W/O Sardar Sab Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100897 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PARVEEN BANU W/O SARDAR SAB, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. NEAR NOUNEHALL SCHOOL, C.B. BALLARI, TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583102.

¶10

SARTHAJ S/O SARADAR SAB, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMAN, R/O. NEAR NOUNEHALL SCHOOL, C.B. BALLARI, TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583102.

¶11

Digitally signed by VISHAL VISHAL NINGAPPA NINGAPPA PATTIHAL PATTIHAL Date: 2023.10.10 13:40:38 +0530

¶12

RAHAMATH BEE W/O IDAYATH, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MORE GALLI, C.B. BALLARI, TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583102.

¶13

IDAYATH S/O SANULLA, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESMAN, R/O. MORE GALLI, C.B. BALLARI, TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583102.

¶14

… PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SABEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580008, THROUGH PSI, BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION, BALLARI-583102.

¶20

SMT. DIL SHAD BEGUM W/O K. SIRAJ, AGE. 21 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 2^ND CROSS, GANDHI NAGAR, TQ & DIST. BALLARI-583103.

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FILING OF CHARGE SHEET AND PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.794/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 4^TH ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BALLARI (IN CRIME NO.45/2021 OF BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION) FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 504, 323, 506 AND 34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 5.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS

¶25

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

¶30

question the proceedings in C.C. No.794/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel Shri Sabeel Ahmed

¶32

appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP Shri V.S. Kalasurmath appearing for respondent No.1 – State.

¶33

The petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 5. In relation they are the mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sisterin-law and the husband of the sister-in-law of the second respondent – complainant, wife of the accused No.1, who is not before the Court. The marriage between the accused No.1 and the second respondent – complainant takes place on 25.10.2020. Immediately thereafter the relationship between two turns sour and the complainant registers a complaint before the jurisdictional Police, which becomes a crime in Crime No.45/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506 &

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶35

34 of the IPC. The Police conduct investigation and file a final report i.e., charge sheet against the petitioners. Filing of the charge sheet is what drives the petitioners before this Court in the subject petition.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶37

would submit that a perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet or even the statements of the witnesses would not indicate any ingredients of offence

¶38

punishable under Sections 498A of the IPC. All the allegations are against the husband – accused No.1 and therefore seeks quashment of the entire proceedings.

¶39

The complainant – second respondent though

¶40

served remains unrepresented even as on date. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP are heard in the matter.

¶41

Learned HCGP would however refute the

¶42

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to contend that the Police after investigation

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶44

¶45

have filed a charge sheet and therefore, it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶46

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶47

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the parties are as aforementioned. Barely after Six months of the marriage between the accused No.1 and the second respondent – complainant, the complainant registers a complaint before the jurisdictional Police alleging torture on demand of dowry by the husband and other members of the family. This becomes a crime in Crime No.45/2021 and this leads the Police to conduct investigation and the product of investigation is the charge sheet so filed by the Police against the petitioners. Since the entire issue sprang from the complaint. I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint at the outset. The compliant reads as follows:

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶50

“�� ಲ�ಂಡ ��ಸದ�� ಸ�� , ನನ� ತವ� ದನ ಬ�� ನಗರದ 2 � �� !ಂ"ನಗರದ��ತ#$ . ನನ� %$ - &'ಯವ�)ಇಬ+ �,-. ಮಕ�1ಮ2# ಇಬ+ �34 ಮಕ�1 ಇ�5#ೕ7 . ಒ9: 14 ಜನ ಮಕ�<�5#ೕ7 _._ �� ಎರಡ� ಮಗ��5#ೕ> .

¶51

ನನ) , @�ಂಕ : 25-10-2020 A� ಬ�� ನಗರದ BC ಬDE ಏ�Gದ��ವ ' HI JC KLಯ ಹN#ರ , O . PQR %$ O . ಸSTE , 28 ವಷT , VೕWX YZ ಂ[ �Z Yರ ರವ\ಂ@) , ಬ��ಯ ನನ� ತವ� ಮ>ಯ ]ಂ$ ^ಂಪ�ಯಕ�� ಮ�7G��ತ#$ _._ aತರ ನ� ನನ� 3ಡನಮ>)bೕ��5#ೕ> _._ ನನ� 3ಡನಮ>ಯ�� ನನ� ಅ5# _:_ ಪ�ೕTW d� e�ನ _:_ ಸQ&R _,_ ರವ� ಇದ�� _._ ಮ�7Gದ _18-10_ @ನಗ1 fತ� ನನ�� g�� hೕijಂ4 ನನ� 3ಡ ಮ2# 3ಡನ ಮ>ಯವ� ಇಲ� _-_ ಸಲ�ದ ಆ\ೕಪಗಳ�� Jm&# _,_ ನನ) _"_ nೕ� ನಮo ಅಂತP#) ತಕ� pೕi ಅಲ�7ಂ� _,_ ನನ� 3ಡ ಏ� Oಲಸ fಡq ಬr ಮ>ಯ�� ಇ�s� _,_ ಪ�N @ನ _24_ 3t mi� u� ನನ) _“_ v ಕ5#wx _,_ yN� wx _,_ zೕ{i ಎಂ� ಅ�ಚZ ಶಬ�ಗ<ಂದ~� _,_ �� ರಣ ನನ� �Lಅ�fನಪ4&# _,_ ತನ� €ಗ<ಂದ b• _-_ ಬ• f4s� f4N#ದ�� _._ ಇದO�‚� ನನ� 3ಡನ ಮ>ಯವ� mಮom� nೕ4&# _,_ nೕ� ನಮo ಮ>ಯ�� ಇರƒOಂದ„�s…<ದ J)†<jಂ4 ‡@�ರƒm _,_ ಇಲ��ದ„ nನ�� Y�ಣ ಸಮತ ಉ<{s@ಲ�7ಂ� _,_ J‰ �� ನನ� ತವ� ಮ>ಯವ�) ŠೕW fಡdರ$ಂ� …1N#ದ�� _._ ನನ� �@n ಮ2# �@n3ಡಇಯ‹ರವ�ಸಹಪ�N@ನನನ� 3ಡನಮ>) u� ಅವ� ನನ) �� ತವ� ಮ>) bೕಗdರ$ಂ� , bೕದŒ ಸಹ ಒಂ� 3t ಇ�� , aತರ ನನ� �@n ಕ„�jಂ4 ಬ�N#ದ�1 . ಇ`ಯ‹ ರವ� ಸಹ ನನ� ತ೦$ - &')d')uŽ5~•ZN#ದ�� .

¶52

ಈ �ಷಯವ>�‚� ನನ� %$ - &') ŠೕW fi N<P‚� _,_ ನನ� %$ _-_ &'ಯವ�ನನ� 3ಡನಮ>)u� ನನ� ಮಗ<) ಈ �ೕN ‘ಂ’ nೕ4N#@�ೕ� ಎಂ� �“�ಸ‚� , ನನ� 3ಡ ಮ2# m9೦ಬದವ� ಏ�ಏ” u� ನನ� %$ -

¶53

¶54

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶55

&'ಯವ�) bಡ - ಬ• fi�&#„ . ಸದ� ‘ಂ’ಯ�� hೕi ನನ� %$ - &' ನನ�� @�ಂಕ : 25-02-2021 A� ನನ� 3ಡನ ಮ>'ಂದ ತವ� ಮ>) ಕ„�jಂ4 u@�&#„ .

¶56

@�ಂಕ : 12-03-2021 A�QN� 11-00 3t)ನನ� 3ಡ mi� ನನ� ತವ� ಮ>) u� ನನ) " nೕ� ಮ>) d ಇಲ��ದ„ಇL�ೕnನ� Y�ಣ5)•5#ೕ>ಂ� , ಇಲ��ದ„nೕ� ಬ��ಯ�� : …) Vೕವನ f4N#ೕG nನ� ಮ>ಯ �L •iಗಳ�� ‡45#ೕ> ಎಂ� –ದ�O J”bೕ��&#> . aತರ ನನ� e�ನ , ಸರ&— n) f‘N N<Pಗ _,_ ಒಂ� ತನ� ಅಣ. ನ�� ಕ„�jಂ4bೕ�� _,_ aತರ–<)˜ _13-032021_ –<)˜ _06-00_ 3t) u� _"_ v ಹಡ‡™: wx Gಕv ನನ� ಮ>) ಬ�s@ಲ�7ಂ� _,_ yN� wx _,_ ಎಂ� ಅ�ಚZ ಶಬ�ಗ<ಂದ ~•ZN#�ಗ ನನ� %$ - &' ಯವ� GO ನನ� ಮಗ<b• - ಬಡ f4N#ೕGಎಂ�†<`ಗ ಅವ�) ಸಹd')uŽ5ಅ�ಚZ ಶಬ�ಗ<ಂದ~@�&#> .

¶57

ನನ) š‘ಕ�� ಮ2# fನPಕ�� ‘ಂ’ nೕi ಅ�ಚZ ಶಬ�ಗ<ಂದ ~� , b• ಬ• fi Y�ಣ –ದ�O J”ದನನ� 3ಡ , OQಮ2# ಅ5# : ಪ�TWd�e�ನ : ಸ &R , �@n „ಹಮ‹ ‡ೕ , �@n 3ಡ ಆ`ಯO� ಅವರ ��ದ› �œ��ೕ&Z ಕ�ಮಜ��{•5ž�.”

¶58

The Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows:

¶59

^”¢ -01 ¤�ೕಮN ‡‚— ƒ3ರವ� @�ಂಕ : 03-112020 A� ಬ�� Hನ KL ಹN#ರ , ‡ , ಬ�� n�PGದ 8-101 O , PQR ಈತhಂ@) ^ಂಪ�`'ಕ�� ಮ�7G��&#„ , ಆ -01 ರವರ

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶61

¶62

ಮ>ಯ� �&#„ , ಆ -01 ಈತನ Yತ� -11 ರವರ�� ಮ�7Gದ 08-10 @ನಗ1 fತ� g�� hೕijಂi$ . -01 ಈತ� ^”¢ -01 ರವ�) ಮxಯ ರL �ಮ ಅY¥ , ರಗ<ಂದ ~� , €ಗ<ಂದ b• - ಬ• fi , fನPಕ�� ಮ2# š‘ಕ�� ”�mಳ nೕi Y�ಣ –ದ�Oಯ�� mN#ದ�� ಇ‚ , ಆ -02 ¤�ೕಮN ಪ�TW d� ಆ -03 ಸ&TR ಆ -04 ¤�ೕಮN ರಹಮ‹ ‡ 505 ಇQಯ‹ ರವ� mಮom� nೕ4N#ದ��

¶63

aತರ ^”¢ -04 ಮ2# 05 ರವ� ^”¢ -01 ರವರ�� @�ಂಕ : 25-02-2021 A� ತಮo ಮ>) ಕ„�jಂ4 u@�&#„ , Qಜಕ : 12-03-2021 A� QN� 11-00 3t {f�) 5-01 ಈತ� ^”¢ -05 ರವರ ಮ>) mi� ಒಂ� ^”¢ -01 ರವ�) " nೕ� ಮ>) d ಇಲ �ದ . ಇತನ Y�ಣ 5)•5#ೕ>ಂ� , d �ಯ5 , nೕ� …) Vೕವನ f4N#G hೕ¦ೕಣ , nನ� ಮ>ಯ �L ಗಳ1 , ‡45#ೕ>ಂ� Y�ಣ –ದ�O JmN#�ಗ _, 5-03_ ಈತ� ^”¢ _-05_ ರವರ ಮ>) u� ಆ _-01_ ಇತ ಕ„�jಂ4 §x� _,_ aತರ @�ಂಕ _: 13-02-2021_ A� –<) _,, 06-00_ 3t) ಆ _-01_ ಈತ� ಮ5# ^”¢ _-05_ ರವರ ಮ>) u� ^”¢ _-21_ ರವ�) ಅ�ಚZ ಶಬ+ ಗ<ಂದ~� b• _-_ ಬ• f4N#�) , ಅLಇ� ^”¢ - 04 & 05 ರವ� ^”¢ -01 ರವರ�� GO b••N#@�ೕG ಎಂ� ಪ�¤�Pದ� O ^”¢ -04 & 05 ರವ�) ಆ -01 ಈತ� d') uŽ5 ~@�&#>ಂ� ^�¢Sರಗ<ಂದ ಮ2# ಈ¨'ಂದ ©ಢಪಟ:ದ _,_ ಆ _-01_ �ಂದ ಆ _-05_ ರವರ �ಲ�ಂಡ ಕ£ ಗಳ ಆ>ಯ Žiಸಲ¬ 4ವ ಅಪQಧ fi�&#„ , ಆದ��ಂದ ಆY@ತರ ��ದ› ಈ ®ೕ¯\ೕಪಣ ಪತ� ಸ��ಸ‚�$ .”

¶64

If the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem what would unmistakably emerge is that the allegation against the first accused forms the entire fulcrum of the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet and not even a sprinkling few

¶65

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶66

allegations that would become ingredients of the offences so punishable under Sections 498A or 323, 504, 506 of the IPC are present in the case at hand qua these petitioners – accused Nos.2 to 5. As a matter of fact, accused Nos.3 & 4 were arrayed as accused do not even reside with the couple or did not even reside with the couple at any point in time. Therefore, these petitioners are dragged into the web of crime without any rhyme or reason. Therefore, permitting further proceedings against these petitioners to continue would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court

¶67

in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022)6 SCC 599 , wherein the Apex Court at paragraph Nos.10 to 21 has held as follows:

¶68

“Issue involved

¶69

10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the appellant in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?

¶70

11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation

¶71

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶72

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. However, 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.

¶73

12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed : (SCC pp. 478-79, para 14)

¶74

“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act 46 of 1983. The expression “cruelty” in Section 498-A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. [ Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married women. We have already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶77

over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualised. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.”

¶78

13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4)

¶79

“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498AIPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”

¶80

14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)

¶81

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-AIPC are filed in the

¶82

12 -

¶83

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶84

heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment is also a matter of serious concern.

¶85

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under Section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

¶86

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualised by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

¶87

35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of

¶88

13 -

¶89

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶90

these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

¶91

36. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”

¶92

15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21)

¶93

“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] 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 had been roped into the

¶94

14 -

¶95

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶96

matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that : (SCC p. 698, para 12)

¶97

‘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 suddenly 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.’

¶98

The view taken by the Judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.”

¶99

16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)

¶100

“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

¶101

15 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶102

husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.”

¶103

17. The abovementioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC 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 against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

¶104

18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-42019, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the appellants. The complainant alleged that “all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy”. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the appellants herein i.e. none of the appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are, therefore, general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High Court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the appellants are concerned, the allegations made against

¶105

16 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶106

them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

¶107

19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR Respondent 1 i.e. the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the learned Principal Judge, Purnea, to not harass the respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017.

¶108

20 . Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the appellant in-laws would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.

¶109

21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellantaccused, 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 eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.”

¶110

17 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11619 CRL.P No. 100897 of 2022

¶111

In the light of the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet not making out any offences against the petitioners in particular accused Nos.2 to 5 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others (SUPRA), if further proceedings are permitted to be continue, it would become

¶112

an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of

¶113

justice. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶114

ORDER

¶115

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶116

(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.794/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506 and 34 of the IPC stands quashed.

¶117

Sd/JUDGE