Partly allowed

Laxmi W/O Narayanrao Pawar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2023CRL.P/102548/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C. No.1688/2022 for offences under Section 498-A IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act. Court distinguished between petitioners with specific allegations and those with general omnibus allegations.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings quashed against petitioners 2 to 6; criminal petition dismissed against petitioner 1.

Laxmi W/O Narayanrao Pawar Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102548 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

LAXMI W/O NARAYANRAO PAWAR, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. #133, 5^TH CROSS, MANJUNATH NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶10

RENUKA W/O RAVI SONALE, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. 8^TH MILE, BENGALURU.

¶11

RAVI SONALE, AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, R/O. 8^TH MILE, BENGALURU.

¶12

RATNA W/O GOVINDARAO PAWAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, MANJUNATH NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Date: 2023.11.28 13:21:31 +0530

¶14

SHAKUNTALA W/O GOVINDARAO PAWAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, MANJUNATH NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.

¶15

ROHINI W/O SHYAM PAWAR, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. GOPANAKOPPA, HUBBALLI.

¶16

… PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. PARASHURAM C. SAJJANAR AND SRI.VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATES)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001.

¶22

SMT. SAVITHA W/O RAGHAVENDRA PAWAR, AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. HOME MAKER, R/O. C/O. MARUTI INHGANALLI, SATTUR, DAHRWAD, PIN CODE-580009.

¶23

… RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. A.A. PATHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1688/2022 (WOMEN POLICE STATION CRIME NO.02/2022) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT HUBBALLI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(A), 323, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 7.

¶26

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

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have sought for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.1688/2022 pending on the file of III Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Court Hubballi registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity) and

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶31

Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act (hereinafter referred as ‘D.P.Act’ for brevity).

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶33

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. None appears for respondent No.2.

¶34

Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint and on the basis of same, a case came to be registered in Crime No.2/2022 of Hubballi-Dharwad Mahila Police Station against these petitioners and another (Accused No.1) for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. The police after investigation have filed charge-sheet against these petitioners and another (Accused No.1) for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. On the basis of the said charge-sheet, a case came to be registered against these petitioners and another in C.C.No.1688/2022 and it is now pending on the file of learned III Additional Civil Judge and

¶35

¶36

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶37

J.M.F.C, Hubballi. The petitioners have sought for quashing

¶38

of the proceedings of said criminal case.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioners would

¶40

contend that on reading of entire averments of the complaint, the allegations made against these petitioners are general omnibus allegations. There are no specific allegations against these petitioners. The husband of respondent No.2 has filed petition seeking divorce and thereafter, respondent No.2 has filed said complaint against these petitioners and another. Petitioners Nos.2 to 6 are residing separately and they are not residing in the house of husband of respondent No.2. He further submits that in the statement of objection filed to the divorce petition, there is no allegation against these petitioners of harassing her. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and Others Vs

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶43

state of Bihar and Others¹ . With this, he prayed to allow

¶44

the petition.

¶45

Learned High Court Government Pleader

¶46

appearing for respondent No.1-State would contend that on perusal of averments of complaint and charge-sheet materials, there are specific allegations against these petitioners of harassing respondent No.2 and demanding dowry. Petitioner No.1 who is the mother-in-law of respondent No.2 was residing along with respondent No.2 and her husband in the house. There are specific allegations against petitioner No.1 in the averments of complaint. He submits that there are no grounds for quashing the proceedings of criminal case. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶47

The marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1-Raghavendra was solemnized on 02.12.2019. Thereafter, respondent No.2 resided along with her husband and mother-in-law in their house. Petitioner No.2

¶48

1 (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 599

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶50

¶51

is the sister-in-law, petitioner No.3 is husband of petitioner No.2, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters of mother-inlaw and petitioner No.6 is the husband’s aunt of respondent No.2. The allegations against them as averred in the complaint that they used to come to the house of respondent No.2 occasionally. It is alleged in the complaint that petitioner Nos.2 to 6 whenever came to the house of respondent No.2, they used to abuse her stating that she is not good looking, she do not know cooking and asking her to bring more money and gold ornaments and they used to assault her and the same has not been disclosed by respondent No.2 to anybody. Except the said allegations there are no other allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 6. The said allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are general omnibus allegations.

¶52

The allegation against husband of complainant -

¶53

respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 who is the mother-inlaw of complainant-respondent No.2 in the complaint that husband of complainant-respondent No.2 and his mother-

¶54

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶55

petitioner No.1 demanded to bring more money and gold from her parental house. It is stated in the complaint that on 10.03.2021 when the younger brother of complainantrespondent No.2 came to take her, at that time her husband and mother-in-law (petitioner No.1) asked him to come only if he brings money and gold and so saying, they gave life threat to him and sent him back. Considering the said aspects, there is a specific allegation against petitioner No.1. The mother, father, brother and two elders, who are cited as CWs.4 to 8 in the charge-sheet have reiterated the averments of complaint in their statements.

¶56

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

¶57

observed as under;

¶58

12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.4, has observed:-

¶59

“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

¶60

¶61

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶62

such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A 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. 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 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.”

¶63

14. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., it has also been observed: (SCC pp.676, paras 32-36)

¶64

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section

¶65

¶66

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶67

498A IPC are filed in the 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.

¶68

33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber 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 498A 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 fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.

¶69

10 -

¶70

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶71

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

¶72

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 these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of 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 scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

¶73

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶74

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 re9main in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”

¶75

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

¶76

9. The allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are

¶77

general omnibus allegations. Petitioner Nos.2 to 6 were not residing in the house of husband of respondent No.2complainant and they are residing separately. Therefore,

¶78

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13678 CRL.P No. 102548 of 2022

¶79

upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to petitioner Nos.2 to 6 i.e., general and omnibus allegations, it would be unjust if petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial. In view of the above, the following;

¶80

ORDER

¶81

^{The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of} Cr.P.C is allowed in part.

¶82

The proceedings in C.C.No.1688/2022 pending on the file of III Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Court Hubballi are quashed insofar as petitioner Nos.2 to 6 (Accused Nos.3 to 7) are concerned.

¶83

The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., by petitioner No.1 (Accused No.2) is dismissed.

¶84

AM CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

¶85

Sd/JUDGE

Laxmi W/O Narayanrao Pawar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi W/O Narayanrao Pawar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Syed Jeelan Basha S/O Syed Mehaboob Ali Vs the State of Karnataka

Praveen S/O. Karabasappa Bhijjannavar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Chandrashekar S/O Basavantappa Hubballi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Nandakumar S/O. Ashok Ghodake Vs State of Karnataka

Nijananda S/O Sharannappa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Noorulla S/O Abdulkhadar Sayed Vs the State of Karnataka