Allowed

Smt Ameena Kausar Ansari W/O Kausar Ansari v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2023CRL.P/103517/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash proceedings in a dowry-related case against the petitioner, who was identified as a distant relative (sister-in-law) facing omnibus allegations lacking specific details. Applying precedents like Kahkashan Kausar, the Court quashed the proceedings as they entailed prosecuting distant relatives without specific evidence of their role.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.907/2022 are quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

Smt Ameena Kausar Ansari W/O Kausar Ansari Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13436 CRL.P No. 103517 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103517 OF 2022 (482-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT AMEENA KAUSAR ANSARI W/O KAUSAR ANSARI AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. PHARMACIST R/O H. NO.40/B(14), ARLEM, RAIA SOUTH GOA, GOA STATE-403720.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

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

¶12

AND:

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Digitally signedbyVIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPIDate:2023.11.2216:41:08 +0530

¶14

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

¶15

SMT ASIFAKHATUN MUSTAQ ANSARI W/O MUSTAQ ANSARI AGE 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD R/O 659/2, SANT ROHIDAS NAGAR ZEE COLONY, TILAKWADI BELAGAVI-590006.

¶16

PRESENT ADDRESS: 466/2, MUSLIM GALLI, ANGOL BELAGAVI-590006.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. P.N.HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13436 CRL.P No. 103517 of 2022

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.907/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A,323,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF IIND JMFC BELAGAVI AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.6 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.907/2022 pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity).

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2 in spite of service of notice remained absent and unrepresented.

¶26

Petitioner is the sister of respondent No.2’s

¶27

husband. Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint and a case came to be registered in Belagavi Woman Police

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13436 CRL.P No. 103517 of 2022

¶29

¶30

Station Crime No.36/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, wherein this petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.6. The police after investigation have filed charge-sheet against this petitioner and six others for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused No.6 in the charge-sheet. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and a case came to be registered in C.C.No.907/2022. The petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of the said criminal case.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1 has taken place 10 years ago. The petitioner after marriage started residing in Goa and her marriage has taken place in the year 2004. The allegations made in

¶32

the complaint against this petitioner and other accused are omnibus allegations. There are no specific dates, place and

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13436 CRL.P No. 103517 of 2022

¶34

time mentioned in the complaint. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

¶35

of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs State of

¶36

Bihar & Ors¹ . With this, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶37

Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that there are specific allegations against this petitioner harassing respondent No.2 along with other accused and giving her life threat and also instigating accused No.1 to marry some other lady so as to get more dowry. There are no grounds for quashing the proceedings. With this, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶38

The marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1-Mustak has taken place 10 years prior to the complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that after some days of marriage, husband of respondent No.2, her mother-in-law and father-in-law instigated her husband and her husband used to assault her and abuse her in filthy language. At that time, her parents approached the

¶39

1 2022 (6) SCC 599.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13436 CRL.P No. 103517 of 2022

¶42

Jamat members who advised them. It is stated that thereafter, they looked after her well and again they started harassing her. It is alleged that father-in-law, mother-in-law of respondent No.2, her mother-in-law’s sister’s son Nisar and his wife Ruksana and her sister-inlaw/Amina Kousar (petitioner) and her husband’s brother Tahir started harassing her. It is alleged that they have threatened to kill her and instigated her husband to marry another lady. There is no specific date mentioning any of the incidents which are narrated in the complaint. The allegation made in the complaint against the petitioner and other accused is general omnibus allegation. The chargesheet witnesses namely respondent No.2’s mother and her two younger brothers have stated similar to that of averments made in the complaint. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the photo copy of Adhar Card and Election I.D Card wherein, this petitioner has been shown as residing in ‘Goa’. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar (supra) , has held as under;

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13436 CRL.P No. 103517 of 2022

¶45

“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, 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.

¶46

14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr ; (2014) 8 SCC 273, it was also observed:-

¶47

“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC 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 498-A IPC 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 a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grandfathers and

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13436 CRL.P No. 103517 of 2022

¶50

grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”

¶51

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

¶52

“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.”

¶53

The allegations made against this petitioner is a

¶54

general omnibus allegations. Therefore, upon

¶55

consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioner, 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 this petitioner in C.C.No.907/2022 pending on the

¶56