High Court quashed prosecution proceedings against petitioners (husband's parents and brother-in-law) of dowry-related charges due to absence of specific allegations against them, relying on Supreme Court precedent.
Criminal proceedings in CC No. 271/2020 against Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:41616 CRL.P No. 3005 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3005 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
W/O UJJAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NILAYA, CORNER HOUSE, HEMAVATHI LADIES HOSTEL, SIDDAVEERAPPA BADAVANE, DAVANAGER 577 004.
CORNER HOUSE, HEMAVATHI LADIES HOSTEL, SIDDAVEERAPPA BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE- 577 004.
Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2023:KHC:41616 CRL.P No. 3005 of 2022
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATSATHYANARAYAN A, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. B S PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC. NO. 271/2020 IN CRIME NO. 32/2019 ON THE FILE JMFC II COURT, AT SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, BALARAJ URS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA REGISTERED BY SHO, WOMEN POLICE STATION, KOTE CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A),114,504,149 OF IPC AND SEC 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT 1961 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OF DIRECTION AS THIS HONBLE COURT MAY DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3 parents in law and Accused No.4 brother in law are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 114, 504, 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. The Police after investigation submitted the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet is that, the marriage of the accused No.1 was solemnized with the defacto
NC: 2023:KHC:41616 CRL.P No. 3005 of 2022
complainant on 10.11.2013, and she was staying in the matrimonial home at Bengaluru from 2014-2016. Thereafter, they went to the USA, since the accused No.1 husband was working as a Software Engineer in the USA and they lived together from 2016-2018. When she became pregnant, she came back to India and gave birth to male baby on 8.7.2018. The respondent No.2 and accused No.1- husband again went back to USA and thereafter the defacto complainant filed the impugned FIR.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and so also learned HCGP for the respondent No.1.
4. Admittedly, the defacto complainant was staying with accused No.1 in the matrimonial home at USA and when she became pregnant she came back to India and delivered a male baby and she was not residing with the petitioners herein. Except omnibus and general allegations, there is no specific allegation as against the accused No.2, 3 and 4 herein as to how, and in what manner each of the said accused subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty both mentally and physically.
5. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162at para No.18 has held as follows:
“18. 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.”
6. Hence, the cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences only on the basis of Omnibus and General allegations is without any substance. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in CC.No.271/2020, pending on the file of II JMFC Court, Shivamogga District for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 114, 504, 149 of IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, insofar it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 is hereby quashed.
NC: 2023:KHC:41616 CRL.P No. 3005 of 2022
iii) The learned Sessions Judge, to proceed against accused No.1 in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order and, the observation if any, is only for the purpose of the present petition.
iv) All contentions are kept open.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
HR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 should be quashed due to lack of specific allegations.
Whether continuation of proceedings against relatives is an abuse of process of law based on general allegations only.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others vs. State of BiharFollowed¶33
2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt Annapurna
Mr Ujjappa Gowda
Mr Madhu L U
State of Karnataka
Smt Sunitha S V
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
