Husband's relatives sought quashing of a dowry harassment case in which they faced only omnibus allegations without specific incidents or roles. Relying on Kahkashan Kausar, the court held such allegations cannot force them through trial and quashed the proceedings against them.
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: 2024:KHC-D:15100 CRL.P No. 102722 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION No. 102722 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SANT ROHIDAS NAGAR UDYAMBAG BELAGAVI – 590 006.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI Z M HATTARKI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED. UNREPRESETNED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF Cr.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC No.907/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ND JMFC BELAGAVI AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.2 TO 5 AND 7.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
mentioned in the complaint. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599. With this, he prayed to allow the petition.
Sri.Mustak had taken place ten 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 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 (accused No.3 / petitioner No.2), mother-in-law (accused No.2 / petitioner No.1) of respondent No.2, her mother-inlaw’s sister’s son Sri.Nisar (accused No.4 / petitioner No.3) and his wife Smt.Ruksana (accused No.5 / petitioner No.4) and her sister-in-law Smt.Amina Kousar (accused No.6) and her husband’s brother Sri.Tahir (accused No.7 / petitioner No.5) 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 allegations made in the complaint against the petitioners and accused No.6 are general omnibus allegations. The charge-sheet witnesses namely respondent No.2’s mother and her two younger brothers have stated similar to that of averments made in the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:15100 CRL.P No. 102722 of 2024
complaint. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar (supra), has held as under;
“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.
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:-
“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, bedridden grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” 17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 it was also observed that:-
“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.”
consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the
absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners, 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 the above, the proceedings against these petitioners in C.C.No.907/2022 pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi requires to be quashed. In the result, the following;
ORDER
The Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is allowed . The proceedings in C.C.No.907/2022 pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi are quashed insofar as these petitioners are concerned.
Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
GH
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 30
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings against husband's relatives based on general omnibus allegations under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC should be quashed.
Whether the absence of specific dates, places and role attribution justifies quashing the proceedings against accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs State of Bihar & OrsFollowed¶7
2022 (6) SCC 599 · Who else cites this
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and AnrReferred
(2014) 8 SCC 273 · Who else cites this
K. Subba Rao v. The State of TelanganaReferred
(2018) 14 SCC 452 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Jamila W/o Mukhtar Ansari
Shri. Mukhtar S/o Sujayat Ansari
Shri. Nisar S/o Qayum Ansari
Smt. Ruksana W/o Nisar Ansari
Shri. Mohammed Tahir S/o Ilahi Ansari
State of Karnataka by Women Police Station, Belagavi
Shivashankar Amaranannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
