Allowed

Nagaraju v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jun 2023CRL.P/159/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings against five in-laws (petitioners). The Court held that general omnibus allegations of dowry harassment, lacking specific factual imputations of criminal role, justified quashing the case to prevent abuse of process and harassment, distinguishing the petitioners from the main accused husband.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. No. 502/2020 under Sections 143, 498A, 323, 504, 506, 149 of IPC and Sections 3, 4 of DP Act are quashed. Petition allowed.

Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 159 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. NAGARAJU,

¶9

S/O. LATE MAYIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT BALEATTIGUPPE VILLAGE, PANGDAVAPURA TALUK, MADYA - 571 434.

¶10

SMT. NINGARAJAMMA, W/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT BALEATTIGUPPE VILLAGE, PANGDAVAPURA TALUK, MADYA - 571 434.

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. YOGESHA B.N., S/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT BALEATTIGUPPE VILLAGE, PANGDAVAPURA TALUK, MADYA - 571 434.

¶14

SRI. MAHESHA B.N., S/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT BALEATTIGUPPE VILLAGE, PANGDAVAPURA TALUK, MADYA - 571 434.

¶15

SRI. GIRISHA B.N., S/O. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT BALEATTIGUPPE VILLAGE,

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶18

PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MADYA - 571 434.

¶19

…PETITIONERS

¶20

(BY SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KAMALUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶21

AND:

¶22

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶23

BY PANDAVAPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶24

SMT. MAMATHA V., W/O. MANJUNATH B.N., BELEATIGUPPE VILLAGE, PANDAVAPURA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 434.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.M. SANATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS CRL.P., IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.502/2020 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.224/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 498A, 323, 504, 506, 149 OF IPC AND SEC.3,4 OF D.P ACT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS CRL.P., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.502/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short) and Sections 3

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶33

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).

¶34

Heard Sri. Udaya Prakash Mulya, learned counsel for Sri. Kamaluddin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.K.M.Sanath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant.

¶35

Before embarking upon the consideration of the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties to the lis . The respondent No.2 is the complainant, wife of one Manjunath B.N., who is not before the Court. The accused No.2-petitioner No.1 is fatherin-law, the accused No.3-petitioner No.2 is mother-in-law and the accused Nos.4 to 6-petitioner Nos.3 to 5 are brother-inlaws. The accused No.1 and the complainant get married on 25.05.2011 and also have two children from the wedlock. It transpires that on certain grievances / allegations against the husband, respondent No.2/complainant seeks to register a complaint, which becomes a crime in Crime No.224/2020 for

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶37

the afore-quoted offences. The police, after an investigation, filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.502/2020 and the matter is pending consideration before the concerned Court. The filing of the charge sheet is what drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that a perusal at the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet would indicate no offences against the petitioners; all that the petitioners are alleged of is participation in a settlement talk between the husband and wife, barring that there is no allegation and all the allegations are against the husband-accused No.1. Therefore, further proceedings should not be permitted to be continue is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶39

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the complaint and summary of the charge sheet clearly make out allegations at least against the mother-in-law and the father-in-law. Therefore, proceedings should be

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶41

permitted to be continued against the two in the least, and would seek dismissal of the petition as afore-submitted.

¶42

Learned HCGP would seek to toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant seeking dismissal of the petition.

¶43

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

¶44

The afore-narrated factum of the relationship between the parties are not in dispute. The respondent No.2 / complainant and accused No.1 get married on 25.05.2011 and on certain grievances of demand for dowry or otherwise against the husband, the complaint comes to be registered by the wife.

¶45

The complaint, insofar as all the petitioners are concerned, reads as follows:

¶46

"EzÁV ¸Áé«Ä ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwzÁgÀgÀÄ EªÀjUÀÆ £ÀqÉ¢gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀvÀå ¸ÀAUÁwAiÀÄ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀ «ZÁgÀªÁV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ PÀÈvÀåUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÁ£ÀÆ¤AzÀ vÀ¦à¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ªÀÄUÀ£À ¥Á°UÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄªÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁr ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¹zÀÞUÉÆ½¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶47

F ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ ºÀ®ªÀÅ ¨Áj ªÀÄPÀÌ¼À eÉÆvÉ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀgÀÄ UÀAqÀ CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¸ÉÃj¸ÀzÉ ¨ÁV®£ÀÄß ºÁQPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÁÝgÉ

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶50

PÉÃ½zÀgÉ £ÀªÀÄUÀÆ ¤ªÀÄUÀÆ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ«®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. eÉÆvÉUÉ EªÀgÀÄ gÁdQÃAiÀÄªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DyðPÀªÁV ¥Àæ§®gÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶51

EzÁV ¸Áé«Ä ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwzÁgÁjAzÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ MzÀV¸À®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀ°®è PÁgÀt ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwzÁgÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¥Àw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛ®è DzÀÝjAzÀ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ ªÉÄÃDÉ ºÉÃ½zÀAvÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀgÀ®Ä MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤Ãr zËdð£ÀåªÉ¸ÀV CªÁZÀå±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¥ÉmÉÆæÃDï ºÁQ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ºÀDÉè ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ¥ÀæªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀÌ½UÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ MzÀV¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÊªÀÄÄVzÀÄ ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÁÛ F ¢£À vÀªÀÄä oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÃgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É"

¶52

The allegations against the petitioners are that they

¶53

have all participated and supported the husband in the talks of certain settlement that was conducted to resolve the dispute between the couple. The police, after an investigation, file a charge sheet against all the accused. Column No.17-the summary of the charge sheet reads as follows:

¶54

"¢£ÁAPÀB 25-05-2011 gÀAzÀÄ F zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÁ®A £ÀA§gï 12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ DgÉÆÃ¦ 1 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë 2 gÀªÀgÀÄ »AzÀÆ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÀvÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁQë 2 gÀªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦ 1 gÀªÀjUÉ 10 UÁæA a£ÀßzÀ MAzÀÄ GAUÀÄgÀ, MAzÀÄ ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀDï ºÁUÀÄ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀjUÉ 35 UÁæA a£ÀßzÀ ªÀqÀªÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄAqÀåzÀ ªÁ¸À« PÀDÁåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ wÃªÀiÁð£ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è GAUÀÄgÀ, 35 UÁæA a£ÀßzÀ ªÀqÀªÉ PÉÆlÄÖ 2 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥ÁAiÀÄÄ RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ 8 wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë 2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¸ÉÊPÀDï §zÀ®Ä 55 ¸Á«gÀ ºÀt PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è DgÉÆÃ¦ 1 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ DgÉÆÃ¦ 2 jAzÀ 5 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦ 1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß wÃj¸À¨ÉPÉAzÀÄ 5 ®PÀëzÀ 25,000 /gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀA¥ÀÆålgï vÀgÀ¨ÉÃw PÉÃAzÀæªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¨ÁåAQ¤AzÀ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr vÉUÉzÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ 5 ®PÀë ºÀtPÁÌV MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr, ºÀt vÀgÀ¢zÀÝgÉ «ªÁºÀ «ZÉÒÃzÀ£À

¶55

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶56

PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉAzÀÄ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ, «ªÁºÀ «ZÉÒÃzÀ£ÀzÀ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÀgÀÄªÀ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ, ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ F PÉÃ¹£À vÀ¤SÉ¬ÄAzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃDÉ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀÅ zÀæqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÉÛ."

¶57

A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet

¶58

would indicate only instigation by the petitioners to the husband for certain kinds of behaviour, which the complainant alleges to be ingredients of Section 498-A of the Act. If the complaint as extracted hereinabove and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, it would not make out an offence punishable under Sections 498A or even 506 of the IPC against the petitioners. The petitioners, who are all residing separately or have nothing to do with the squabble between the husband and the wife, are without rhyme or reason dragged into the web of crime in these proceedings. If further proceedings are permitted to continue against these petitioners notwithstanding the fact that there are no allegations against them, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in

¶59

the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC

¶60

Online SC 162, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

¶61

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶63

11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions

¶64

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 in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?

¶65

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.

¶66

13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472, has observed:-

¶67

“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 the Act46 of 1983. The expression

¶68

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶70

'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 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 visualized. 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.”

¶71

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:-

¶72

“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 a quite number of cases, bed- ridden grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”

¶73

10 -

¶74

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶75

15. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been observed:-

¶76

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498AIPC 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 are also a matter of serious concern.

¶77

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 498Aas 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.

¶78

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint

¶79

11 -

¶80

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶81

can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

¶82

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.

¶83

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 amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”

¶84

16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed:-

¶85

“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V.

¶86

12 -

¶87

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶88

Raovs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 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:

¶89

“there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.”

¶90

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

¶91

“6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial dispute sand dowry deaths. The relatives of the husband

¶92

13 -

¶93

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶94

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

¶95

18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section498A 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.

¶96

19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, 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

¶97

14 -

¶98

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶99

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.

¶100

20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 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 Ld. 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 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.

¶101

21. 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 in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.

¶102

22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific

¶103

15 -

¶104

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶105

role attributed to the accused appellants, 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.”

¶106

(Emphasis supplied)

¶107

The Apex Court in later judgment has observed that

¶108

in the event the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would find no allegations against the petitioners, such proceedings should not be permitted to continue in the case of SHAFIYA KHAN ALIAS SHAKUNTALA PRAJAPATI V. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER reported

¶109

in (2022)4 SCC 549, wherein it has held as follows:

¶110

19. In the given circumstances and going through the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered and other material placed on record, we are of the considered view that no offence of any kind as has been alleged in the FIR, has been made out against the appellant and if we allow the criminal proceedings to continue, it will be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law and will be a mental trauma to the appellant which has been

¶111

16 -

¶112

NC: 2023:KHC:21486 CRL.P No. 159 of 2021

¶113

completely overlooked by the High Court while dismissing the petition filed at her instance under Section 482 CrPC.

¶114

20. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant in reference to FIR No. 0227 of 2019 dated 9-7-2019 under Sections 494, 495, 416, 420, 504 & 506 IPC lodged at PS Bazar Khala, District Lucknow, U.P. are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶115

(Emphasis supplied)

¶116

In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court and the facts narrated hereinabove, which does not even indicate any semblance of an ingredient of Section 498-A of the offences under Section 498-A or even 506 of the IPC permitting further proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the law and result in a miscarriage of justice

¶117

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶118

ORDER

¶119

1. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶120

1. Proceedings in C.C.No.502/2020 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Pandavapura, Mandya registered for the offence punishable under Section 143, 498A, 323, 504, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code,

¶121