Partly allowed

Ramesh S/O. Channamallappa Mallapur v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2023CRL.P/104170/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal proceedings for matrimonial cruelty and connected offences were quashed against the husband's parents and brother. The court held that continuing proceedings against them would abuse the process of law. The petition was partly allowed; the husband's challenge was rejected as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No.530 of 2021 quashed insofar as petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 were concerned.

Ramesh S/O. Channamallappa Mallapur Vs the State of… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104170 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RAMESH S/O. CHANNAMALLAPPA MALLAPUR, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. MANNIKERI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.

¶10

SMT. NINGAMMA W/O. CHANNAMALLAPPA MALLAPUR, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MANNIKERI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.

¶11

CHANNAMALLAPPA S/O NANDEPPA MALLAPUR, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANNIKERI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.

¶12

SURESH S/O CHANNAMALLAPPA MALLAPUR, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE WORK, R/O. MANNIKERI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT.

¶13

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶14

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Date: 2023.09.25 10:58:37 +0530

¶15

(BY SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

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

¶18

SMT. SHARADA W/O RAMESH MALLAPPUR, AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, R/O. MANNIKERI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT, NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO.30, NEAR SHANKAR MATHA SHETTAR COLONY, DHARWAD-580008.

¶19

… PETITIONERS

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1; SRI. DEEPAK MAGANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., IS SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 530/2021 (CRIME NO.37/2020) REGISTERED BY HUBBALLI-DHARWAD WOMEN PS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A),323,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC ACT 1860 AND 3,4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT 1961 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J JMFC II COURT, DHARWAD.IN SO FAR AS ACCUSED /PETITIONER NO. 1 TO 4 ARE CONCERNED.

¶25

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

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are before this court calling in

¶28

question the proceedings in C.C. No.530 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of

¶29

the Dowry Prohibition Act.

¶30

The second respondent is the wife of accused No.1, she is the complainant. Petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 are the Mother-in-law, father-in-law & brother-in-law of the complainant.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel Shri Anand R.Kolli appearing for the petitioners; learned AGA Shri M.M. Khannur appearing for respondent No.1 – State; & learned

¶32

¶33

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶34

counsel Shri Deepak Maganur appearing for respondent No.2 – complainant.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he is not wanting to press the petition insofar as the first petitioner – husband is concerned. In the light of the said submission, the petition insofar as the first petitioner – accused No.1 - husband stands rejected.

¶36

Facts adumbrated are as follows:

¶37

Accused No.1 and the second respondent –

¶38

complainant get married on 11.04.2016 and have a child from the wedlock. After the birth of the child, it transpires that the relationship between accused No.1 and the second respondent – complainant flounders. On floundering of the relationship, the second respondent – complainant registers a complaint alleging the acts of torture by the husband and in-laws and brother-in-law as the case would be and seeks to register the complaint before the jurisdictional Police. The complaint then become a crime in Crime No.37 of 2020 for the afore quoted offences. The Police conduct

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶41

investigation and file a charge sheet against all the accused. Filing of the charge sheet is what drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶42

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the brother-in-law, mother-in-law and fatherin-law reside at Bagalkot, while the couple stayed at Dharwad. It is the contention that the allegation against the petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 is that they are only instigating accused No.1 – husband to torture the wife and therefore he would submit that such instigation would not become an offence as alleged against the petitioners.

¶43

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – complainant would take this Court though the documents appended to the petition and to contend that the statement of independent eyewitnesses is on record and they would clearly indicate grave torture by the husband on the wife and therefore, he would submit that the petition be dismissed and the proceedings be permitted to be continue against all the petitioners.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶46

Learned AGA would toe the lines of the learned

¶47

counsel appearing for the second respondent – complainant in seeking dismissal of the petition on account of the charge sheet being filed by the Police.

¶48

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶49

submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶50

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The link in the chain of events or the dates are all a matter of record. The relationship between the husband and wife i.e., accused No.1 and the complaint turning sour leads the complaint to register a crime in Crime No.37/2020. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioners. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint registered against the petitioners. The complaint reads as follows:

¶51

¶52

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶53

“ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

¶54

£Á£ÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ «zÁåVjAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÁÌA D¦Ã¹£À°è C¹¸ÉÖAmï EAf¤AiÀÄgÀ CAvÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß ªÀÄqÀÄªÉAiÀÄÄ ²æÃ. gÀªÉÄÃ±À vÀAzÉ ZÀ£ÀßªÀÄ®è¥Àà ªÀÄ¯Áè¥ÀÆgÀ EªÀgÀ eÉÆvÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11.04.2016 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ¸ÀéUÀÈºÀ ªÀÄ¤ßPÉÃj, vÁ|| ©Ã¼ÀV, f || ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃlzÀ°è £ÉgÀªÉÃjzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶55

£À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃl f¯Éè dªÀÄRAr vÁ®ÆQ£À vÀÄAUÀ¼À UÁæªÀÄzÀªÀjzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ gÀªÉÄÃ±À ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ EªÀgÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÀÄjvÀÄ 15 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ LzÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ. ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ ¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. DzÀgÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV 15 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ JgÀqÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶56

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 26.09.2017 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ “®ºÀj’’ CAvÁ MAzÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ d¤¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ MAzÀÄ ¥ÉæöÊªÉÃmï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ zÁ£ÉÃ±Àéj £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÉ£ÁßVzÉAiÉÄÃ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝªÀÅ.

¶57

DzÀgÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ vÀ£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÉÃ½ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀtPÁÌV CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ, ¨ÉÆÃ¸Àr ¤£Àß£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§¼ÀPÁÌV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¤£Àß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ¸ÀA§¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß CxÀªÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ DPËAlÎ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ¤£Àß£ÀÄß fÃªÀAvÀªÁV ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ºÁPÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ fÃªÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ §rAiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶58

F jÃwAiÀiÁV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀvÀð£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀjUÉ DUÁUÀ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. EwÛÃZÉUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À¢AzÀ ¨ÉÃ¸ÀvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥sÉ§æªÀjAiÀÄ°è zÁgÀªÁqÀPÉÌ PÀgÉ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ DvÀ£À QgÀÄPÀÄ¼ÀzÀ §UÉÎ «ªÀj¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ¤UÉ F «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ gÀªÉÄÃ±À¤UÉ w½ºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀAvÉ «£ÀAw¹PÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CzÉÃ ¢£À £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÀÄrzÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¹PÁÌ¥ÀmÉÖ ºÉÆr §r ªÀiÁr Q«AiÀÄ°è gÀPÀÛ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ PÉ¼ÀUÉ PÉqÀ«, PÁ°¤AzÀ MzÀÄÝ

¶59

¶60

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶61

£À£Àß£ÀÄß ©r¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä §AzÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀjUÉ, ¤ªÉÄä®ègÀ£ÀÆß E°è ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ fÃªÀzÀ zsÀªÀÄQ ºÁPÀÄvÀÛ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¨ÁQ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÉÃ½ E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ¤ªÀÄä£Àß ¸ÀÄªÀÄä£É ©qÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. CAvÀ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄvÁÛ £À£Àß ªÉÄÊAiÀÄ°zÀÝ £Á®ÄÌ vÀ¯É vÁ½ ¸ÀgÀ, JAlÄ vÀ¯É §AUÁgÀzÀ §¼ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ HjUÉ

¶62

ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÇ £ÀªÀÄÆäj£À »jAiÀÄgÁzÀ E§âgÀÄ ¸Á॥ vÀÄAUÀ¼À ²æÃ ºÀ£ÀªÀÄ£ÀAvÀ, ©üÃªÀÄ¥Àà PÀgÉÆÃ² ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ. ©üÃªÀÄ¥Àà ¹zÀÝ¥Àà vÁgÁd£ÀV EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À HgÁzÀ ªÀÄ¤ßPÉÃjUÉ ºÉÆÃV J¯Áè «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀA¢jUÉ w½¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À eÉÆvÉ ¸ÉÃj £ÀªÀÄUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä Hj£À »jAiÀÄjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ºÉtÄÚ PÉÆqÀÄªÀªÀjzÀÝgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§¼À eÁ¹Û EzÉ CAvÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÁ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀgÉ, ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉÃªÀ® 20-25 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ ªÀiÁvÀæ wAUÀ½UÉ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ ºÀl ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ¼É. DzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÀ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶63

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07.03.2020 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ gÀªÉÄÃ±À ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ MAzÉgÀqÀÄ ¢£À £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ EzÀÄÝ £À£Àß §AUÁgÀzÀ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀ½ vÀAzÀÄPÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÃ½zÀÝPÉÌ DvÀ£ÀÄ DzÉ®èªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ºÀwÛgÀ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅ¢®è CAvÀ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ CAvÀ ºÉÃ½ CzÉÃ «µÀAiÀÄªÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ 08.03.2020 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß JgÀqÀÄ UÀAmÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁjUÉ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆr §r ªÀiÁr CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ fÃªÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. F «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß DvÀ£À CtÚ ¸ÀÄgÉÃ±À¤UÉ w½¹zÁUÀ DvÀ£ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄß CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄvÁÛ £ÁªÀÅ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä¤UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀªÀjzÉÝÃªÉ CzÀPÉÌ ¤ÃªÉÃ£ÁzÀgÀÆ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß fÃªÀAvÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ¢ü ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÀ fÃªÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÁÝgÉ.

¶64

DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£À ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ, £À£Àß PÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹ÃéPÀj¹®è. ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÀ §A¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè.

¶65

DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ|| gÀªÀgÀÄ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ £À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ gÀªÉÄÃ±À ZÀ£ÀßAiÀÄ®è¥Àà ªÀÄ¯Áè¥ÀÆgÀ, CvÉÛ, ¤AUÀªÀÄä ZÉ£ÀßªÀÄ®è¥Àà ªÀÄ¯Áè¥ÀÆgÀ, ªÀiÁªÀ ZÀ£ÀßªÀÄ®è¥Àà £AzÉ¥Àà ªÀÄ¯Áè¥ÀÆgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÁªÀ ¸ÀÄgÉÃ±À ZÀ£ÀßªÀÄ®è¥Àà ªÀÄ¯Áè¥ÀÆgÀ À EªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À¢AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀÄA§ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¤qÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ fÃªÀ ¨sÀAiÀÄ¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ

¶66

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶67

ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÀ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄwÛ®è CzÀÝjAzÀ EªÀgÉ®ègÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ MzÀV¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV «£ÀAw ¦AiÀiÁð¢ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶68

EAzÀ®è £Á¼É £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÁjPÀ fÃªÀ£À ¸Àj ºÉÆAzÀÄvÀÛzÉ CAvÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, CvÉÛ, ªÀiÁªÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÁªÀ EªÀgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ J¯Áè QgÀÄPÀÄ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À»¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ EzÀÄÝ, DzÀgÉ CªÀgÀ PÀqÉ¬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉ ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃ¨sÁªÀ PÁtzÉÃ EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ »jAiÀÄgÀ°è «ZÁj¹, F ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀqÀªÁVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶69

F ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ eÉÆvÉUÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀtÂ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.”

¶70

A perusal at the complaint would indicate that serious differences of opinion between the husband and wife and the other petitioners are trying to settle the dispute between the husband and wife. The non-settlement of the dispute leads the wife to register a crime against all the accused. The allegations are primarily against the husband while sprinkling few against the other accused. The Police conduct investigation as observed herein above and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 would read as follows:

¶71

“EzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄ WÀl£ÉAiÀÄÄ «zÁåVj ¦J¸ï ºÀ¢Ý ¥ÉÊQ ¥Áèl £ÀA. 30, ±ÀAPÀgÀ ªÀÄoÀzÀ ºÀwÛgÀ ±ÉlÖgÀ PÁ¯ÉÆÃ¤ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ, ¦AiÀiÁð¢ ºÁUÀÆ J1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆr ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è dgÀÄVzÀÄÝ EzÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄÄ J1 £ÉÃzÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11-04-2016 gÀAzÀÄ

¶72

¶73

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶74

ªÀÄ¤ßPÉÃj f: ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉAiÀÄ°è J1 £ÉÃªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ dgÀÄVzÀÄÝ J1 ¢AzÀ J4 £ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁ®PÉÌ ¸Á¸ÉÃd £ÀA. 4 £ÉÃzÀªÀgÀ PÀqÉ¬ÄAzÀ 10 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 ®PÀë gÀÆ ºÀt PÉÃ½ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ°è 8 vÀÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ ¦gÁå¢UÉ ªÀÄAUÀ¼À¸ÀÆvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §¼ÉUÉ CAvÁ ªÀgÀ£À PÀqÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. CAvÁ ºÉÃ½zÀÝjAzÀ ¸Á¸ÉÃd £ÀA. 4 £ÉÃzÀgÀÄ J1 £ÉÃzÀªÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ §AUÁgÀzÀ°è 8 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ §¼É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAUÀ¼À¸ÀÆvÀæPÉÌ CAvÁ vÉUÉzÀÄ G½zÀ 20 UÁæA §AUÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀgÀ¤UÉ MAzÀÄ §AUÁgÀzÀ ZÉÊ£À ºÁUÀÆ MAzÀÄ §AUÁgÀzÀ GAUÀÄgÀ ªÀiÁr PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è £ËPÀj ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ PÁgÀt J1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ EzÀÄÝ, ¢: 26-09-2017 gÀAzÀÄ MAzÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ d¤¹zÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ 2 ªÀµÀðzÀªÀgÉUÉ J1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ J1£ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¨ÉÆÃ¸Àr ¤£Àß£ÀÄß ¸ÀA§¼ÀPÁÌV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ¤£Àß ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ¸ÀA§¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß CxÀªÁ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ DPËAlUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ. E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ¤£Àß£ÀÄß fÃªÀAvÀªÁV ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ºÁPÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ fÃªÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ ¸À»¹PÉÆAqÀÄ EzÀÝ¼ÀÄ. J2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J3 £ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ DUÁUÀ zsÁgÀªÁqÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄÄ ¸Á¸ÉÃd £ÀA 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 £ÉÃzÀªÀjUÉ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ J2 ¢AzÀ J3 £ÉÃzÀªÀjUÉ §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉÃ½zÀÝjAzÀ J1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÀgÁ¬Ä PÀÄrzÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ Q«AiÀÄ°è gÀPÀÛ §gÀÄªÀ ºÁUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ PÁ°¤AzÀ MzÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¸Á¸ÉÃeï £ÀA 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 £ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ ©r¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä §AzÁUÀ CªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¨ÁQ EzÀÝ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉÃ EzÀÝgÉ ¤ªÉÄä®ègÀ£ÀÄß E°èAiÉÄÃ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ºÁQ ©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ fÃªÀzÀ zsÀªÀÄQ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, C®èzÉÃ, ¦gÁå¢ ªÉÄÊªÉÄÃ°zÀÝ vÁ½ ¸ÀgÀ, §AUÁgÀzÀ §¼ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦gÁå¢ ªÀÄUÀ¼À §AUÁgÀzÀ ZÉÊ£À QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ£Àß HgÀÄ ªÀÄ¤ßPÉÃjUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ, ¸Á¸ÉÃd £ÀA 4, 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7 £ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj ¸À£ï 2020 ¥sÉ§ÄæªÀj wAUÀ¼À°è ªÀÄ¤ßPÉÃjUÉ ºÉÆÃV J2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J3 £ÉÃzÀªÀjUÉ J1 £ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼ÀzÀ §UÉÎ J¯Áè «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß w½¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ J1 eÉÆvÉ ¸ÉÃj ¸Á±ÉÃd £ÀA 4, 6,

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶77

7 £ÉÃzÀªÀjUÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ºÉÆ® PÉÆqÀÄªÀªÀjzÀÝgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§¼À eÁ¹Û EzÉ CAvÁ ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÁ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀÆqÁ 20/25 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ ªÀiÁvÀæ wAUÀ½UÉ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ ºÀoÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ¼É. DzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀ ºÁUÉ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ PÀ¼ÀÄ¹zÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢: 7/3/2020 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11-00 UÀAmÉUÉ J1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ±ÉlÖgÀ PÁ¯ÉÆÃ¤UÉ §AzÀÄ MAzÉgÀqÀÄ EzÁÝUÀ ¦gÁå¢ J1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ¤UÉ §AUÁgÀzÀ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÃ½zÁUÀ J¯Áè §AUÁgÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ EzÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ºÉÆÃUÀÄ CAvÁ ºÉÃ½ CzÉÃ «µÀAiÀÄªÁV ¢.8/3/2020 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 2-00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁjUÉ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁr ¦gÁå¢UÉ ºÉÆr §r ªÀiÁr CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ CªÀ½UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ¼À ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ fÃªÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ J4 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ F J®è «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß J4À £ÉÃzÀªÀ£À ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÃ½zÁUÀ J4 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¦gÁå¢UÉ CªÁZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄvÁÛ J1 £ÉÃzÀ«UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀªÀjzÉÝÃªÉ. CzÀPÉÌ ¤Ã£ÉÃ£ÁzÀgÀÆ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ ¤£Àß£ÀÄß fÃªÀAvÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ¢ü ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÁ fÃªÀzÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀ D¥ÀgÁzsÀ.

¶78

PÀ®A 498(J), 323, 504, 506 ¸ÀºÀPÀ®A 34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3,4 r.¦ JPÀÖ”

¶79

Again a perusal at the summary of the charge

¶80

sheet would indicate that all the offences against the husband – accused No.1 who has meted out grave torture upon the wife. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, it is the narration in the summary of the charge sheet itself that the parents of accused No.1 were reside at Bagalkot and whenever they came to Dharwad to visit their son, they

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶83

would instigate their son to behave in rude with the complainant and therefore, such instigation has led to registration of crime and filing of the charge sheet. If the statements recorded during the investigation and the product of investigation i.e., the charge sheet is noticed what would unmistakably emerge is the presence of all the instances of torture and assault by the husband upon the wife, while sprinkling few against the petitioners i.e., father-in-law, mother-in-law, the brother-in-law in particular is nowhere in picture. Therefore, permitting the further proceedings qua the petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4 for the offences alleged would become an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 becomes apposite. The Apex Court has held as follows:

¶84

“Issue involved

¶85

10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the appellants and respondents,

¶86

12 -

¶87

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶88

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?

¶89

11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation 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-AIPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

¶90

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)

¶91

“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

¶92

13 -

¶93

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶94

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.”

¶95

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)

¶96

“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 498-AIPC 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.”

¶97

14 -

¶98

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶99

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)

¶100

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

¶101

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.

¶102

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and

¶103

15 -

¶104

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶105

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.

¶106

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 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.

¶107

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.”

¶108

15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 :

¶109

16 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶110

(2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21)

¶111

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

¶112

‘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.’

¶113

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

¶114

17 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶115

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)

¶116

“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.”

¶117

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 inlaws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

¶118

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

¶119

18 -

¶120

NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶121

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 them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

¶122

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.

¶123

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.

¶124

19 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶125

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.”

¶126

The Apex Court considers the very issue of other

¶127

members of the family being dragged into the web of crime, by the complainant i.e., the wife in several cases and holds that the Court quash those proceedings, if it does not reveal any allegations against the in-laws or the other members of the family. The case at hand also does not reveal any such ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, in the light of the facts narrated herein above and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar v. State of Bihar (Supra), if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶128

20 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:11016 CRL.P No. 104170 of 2022

¶129

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶130

ORDER

¶131

(i) The petition is allowed in part.

¶132

(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.530 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act stands quashed qua petitioner Nos.2, 3 & 4.

¶133

Sd/JUDGE

¶134

vnp*/ ct:bck List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31

Ramesh S/O. Channamallappa Mallapur v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh S/O. Channamallappa Mallapur v. the 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

Ashok Rudragouda Patil Vs the Managing Director

Smt. Arati Suresh Hulikoppe Vs Shri. Vasantrao Ganapatro Deshmukh

Smt. Seeta D/O Kushappa Bajaguli Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Kaveri D/O Suryakant Tate Vs Smt Akshta W/O Sagar Tate

Mahammaedahanif S/O Mehaboobsab Nadaf Vs the State of Karnataka

Rao v S Alias B v Rao S/O. B Madhusudan Vs the State of Karnataka