Partly allowed

Mr Mahesha N v. State by East Zone Shivaji Nagar Womens Police Station

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2024CRL.P/1191/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife filed a complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against her husband and his parents and sister after a short-lived marriage. The High Court found allegations against the relatives were only omnibus instigation allegations with no ingredients of Section 498-A, and following Kahkashan Kausar quashed proceedings against them while allowing

What the court decided

AI extract

Mr Mahesha N Vs State by East Zone Shivaji Nagar Womens… — Dowry and Cruelty | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1191 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR MAHESHA N

S/O NARAYANASWAMY D,

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

WARD NO 01,

PRASANNAHALLI

DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DIST BENGALURU 562110

¶13

2. NARAYANASWAMY D

¶14

S/O DODDA HONAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

¶15

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

WARD NO 01, PRASANNAHALLI

¶17

DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DIST BENGALURU 562110

¶18

MUNIRATHNAMMA

¶19

W/O NARAYANASWAMY D,

¶20

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, WARD NO 01 PRASANNAHALLI DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DIST

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶23

BENGALURU 562110

¶24

SHAILA N D/O NARAYANASWAMY D, W/O SRINIVAS H, 1^ST WARD PRASANNAHALLI DEVANAHALLI TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DIST BENGALURU 562110

¶25

…PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA G., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

STATE BY EAST ZONE SHIVAJI NAGAR WOMENS POLICE STATION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶29

MRS NANDINI W/O MAHESHA N D/O SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, NO.52, JAKKASANDRA BHAVANI SHANKAR HOTEL BACKSIDE NELAMANGALA KARNATAKA 562123

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESH, ADDL.S.P.P. FOR R1; SRI. H. MALATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶34

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.126/2021 REGISTERED BY SHIVAJI NAGAR WOMEN POLICE STATION (EAST ZONE) WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE COMPLAINT FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 MRS. NANDINI THE NAME OF FURTHER INVESTIGATION / COUNSELING U/S 498(A), 323, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT IN CR.NO.126/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THIS CRL.P BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT PETITION.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.126/2021.

¶38

Heard Sri. Manjunatha G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Addl.S.P.P. appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. H. Malatesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶39

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶40

3. Learned Addl.S.P.P. submits that date on which the interim order was granted i.e., on 01.04.2022, the charge sheet had been filed before the concerned Court by the Officer in-charge of the police station. Therefore, the matter is taken up despite a charge sheet being filed against the accused.

¶41

4. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶42

Before embarking upon considering the facts obtaining in the case at hand, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship of the parties to the lis . Respondent No.2 is the complainant, wife of petitioner No.1 – accused No.1; petitioner No.2 is the father-in-law; petitioner No.3 is the mother-in-law and petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of the complainant. The marriage between petitioner No.1 and the complainant takes place on 02.04.2021 and it transpires that immediately after the marriage, the relationship between the two flounders. The floundering of the relationship and the other grievances lead the complainant to register a complaint on 15.11.2021. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet before the concerned Court against all the accused. Just before filing of the charge sheet, the subject petition had been preferred and an interim order of stay of further proceedings pursuant to the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶45

registration of the aforesaid crime was granted by this Court on 01.04.2022. Therefore, the trial is not proceeded further.

¶46

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the complaint is baseless and does not indicate any ingredients of the offences so alleged against the accused, the petitioners. The offences are the ones punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

¶47

6. Learned counsel would further submit that accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are other members of the family are also drawn into these proceedings without any rhyme or reason and would submit that the crime and all further proceedings taken thereto, be quashed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

¶48

7. Per contra , learned Addl.S.P.P., would take this Court through the complaint and demonstrate that prima facie material is met against the accused and the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet before the concerned Court. Therefore, this Court should not interfere and the proceedings must be permitted to go on and it is for the accused to come out clean in the trial, is his submission.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶51

8. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant

¶52

would also toe the lines of the learned Addl.S.P.P. in seeking dismissal of the petition.

¶53

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶54

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

¶55

10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the parties is also a matter of record. The marriage between the two immediately turned sour and a complaint comes to be registered on 15.11.2021. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint, which reads as follows:

¶56

F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £ÀA¢¤ DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ, ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 19 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì¼ÀîªÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, £É®ªÀÄAUÀ®zÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀå ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ¸À zÀÆj£À «µÀAiÀÄzÀ ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀ 02.04.2021 gÀAzÀÄ zÉÃ£ÀºÀ½î¸À vÁ®ÆèQ£À ¥À¸À£Àß ºÀ½îAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄ¤gÀvÀßªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¸Áé«Ä AiÀÄªÀgÀ ¥ÀÄvÀæ£ÁzÀ ªÀÄºÉÃ±ï JA§ÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÉzÀ 6 wAUÀ¼À PÉ¼ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. DzÀgÉ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ, vÁ¬Ä, £À£Àß £Á¢¤ ±ÉÊ® ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀºÀ£À JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÃªÀ® 6 wAUÀ½£À°èAiÉÄÃ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ J¸ÀVzÀÄÝ, PËlÄA©PÀ zËdð£ÀåªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C®èzÉ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ

¶57

¶58

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶59

ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀA¢®è JAzÀÄ ¥Àæw ¢£ÀªÀÇ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶60

£À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ F ªÉÆzÀKÉÃ ¸ÀºÀ£À J£ÀÄßªÀªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, CªÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÉÄÃ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµÀªÁVzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÉªÀiÁa £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÉÆÃ¸À¢AzÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁV £À£Àß fÃªÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀÄªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C®èzÉÃ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÁV C£ÁgÉÆÃUÀå¢AzÀ §¼À®ÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÆÃ¸ÀªÀiÁr E®è¸À®èzÀ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄîUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÃ½ £ÀªÀÄä C¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀÄrØ£À zË®wÛ¤AzÀ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ, £À£Àß£ÀÄß §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C®èzÉ, £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ ¤²ÑvÁxÀðzÀAzÉÃ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ£À JA§ÄªÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ Nr ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÉªÀiÁa £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀªÁzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛªÁV ¥ÁætÂAiÀÄAvÉ £À£Àß£ÀÄß £ÀqÉ¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶61

C®èzÉ, £Á£ÀÄ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ PÉÃ½zÀgÉ, "¤£Àß CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ £À£ÀV®è ¤Ã£ÀÄ rªÉÇÃ¸ïð PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄ£É ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ" JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ dUÀ¼ÀPÉÌ E½AiÀÄÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¥ÀæwÃ gÁwæ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ KÉÃmÁV §gÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. CzÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß CvÉÛ, ªÀiÁªÀ£ÀªÀjUÉ ºÉÃ½zÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ CªÀ¤gÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ ºÁUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ J®èªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À»¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è D½£ÀAvÉ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ºÉvÀÛªÀjUÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÁ½AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆÃtÂ¸À®Ä ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ¬Ä¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. C®èzÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä MnÖUÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀévÁAvÀæöå £À£ÀVgÀ°®è. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É £À£Àß vÀAzÉ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CzÀ£ÀÄß gÉPÁqïð ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁV MAzÀÄ ¢£ÀªÀÅ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀAvÉÆÃµÀªÁVgÀ®Ä £À£Àß CvÉÛAiÀiÁUÀ°, ªÀiÁªÀ£ÁUÀ° CxÀªÀ £Á¢¤AiÀiÁUÀ° £À£ÀUÉ ©qÀ°®è C®èzÉÃ ¥Àæw ¢£ÀªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ MAzÀ®è MAzÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ £À£ÀUÉ ±ÉÆÃµÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. C®èzÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À C£ÉÊwPÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀÝPÉÌ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ vÀÄA¨Á ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, CzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÃ¼ÀKÉAzÀÄ §AzÁUÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä JAzÀÄ UËgÀªÀ PÉÆqÀzÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß CvÉÛ, ªÀiÁªÀ, £Á¢¤ ¸ÉÃj £À£Àß CªÀÄä£À£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ

¶62

¶63

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶64

M¼ÀUÀÆ ¸ÉÃj¸ÀzÉÃ ¨ÁV®®èKÉèÃ CªÀjUÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ ¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁV 3 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ avÀæ»A¸É ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C®èzÉÃ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, ¸ÀºÀ£Á J£ÀÄßªÀªÀ¼À ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß PÉÃ½ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁgÀuÁAwPÀªÁV ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ §rzÀÄ J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj £À£Àß£ÀÄß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£É ©qÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶65

DzÀ PÁgÀt F ªÉÄÃ°£À PÀÈvÀå J¸ÀVgÀÄªÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, CvÉÛ, ªÀiÁªÀ, £Á¢¤ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀºÀ£À gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃKÉ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£À jÃw PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ, C®èzÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¥Àæ¨sÁ«UÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ, F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß wgÀÄZÀÄªÀ ¸ÁzsÀåvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄAiÀÄgÀªÀjUÉ fÃªÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ SÁªÀAzÀgÁzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃKÉ PÀpt PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ PÉÆr¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è PÀ¼ÀPÀ½¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É.

¶66

A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that all grievances or offences are laid against the petitioner No.1 and none against other members of the family i.e., the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The subject petition was preferred immediately after registration of the crime and this Court on 1.4.2022 had passed the following order:

¶67

"Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for respondent no.1.

¶68

Issue emergent notice to respondent no.2.

¶69

Petitioners are before this .Court calling in question the proceedings in FIR No.126/2021 registered by Shivajinagar Women Police Station (East Zone) for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506

¶70

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶72

34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Cr.No.126/2021 pending on the file of VI Additional C.M.M. Bengaluru.

¶73

The second respondent is the complainant, wife of the first petitioner - accused no.1. Petitioners no.2, 3 and 4 are the Father-in-law, Mother-in-law and Sister-in-law of second respondent - complainant.

¶74

A complaint is registered by the second respondent on 15.11.2021 seeking to allege offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and other allied offences as is found in the FIR.

¶75

A perusal at the complaint would indicate no offence against anyone even including husband - petitioner no.1. Grievances which could be sorted out between the couple are sought to be made subject matter for setting criminal law in motion.

¶76

Therefore, there shall be interim order of stay of all further proceedings/investigation in FIR No.126/2021 registered by Shivajinagar Women Police Station (East Zone) for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 323, 504, 506 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act in Cr.No.126/2021 pending on the file of VI Additional C.M.M. Bengaluru, till next date of hearing, as, further proceedings if permitted to be continued, prima facie, would fall foul of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022 SCConline SC 162 ."

¶77

Therefore, further proceedings before the concerned Court had not moved forward. If the complaint quoted supra is noticed, what would unmistakably emerge is, the totality of the allegations is against the husband and only sprinkling allegations are against father in-law, mother in-law and sister in-law. The allegations against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are that they have instigated petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 - husband

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶80

to meet out harassment, barring this, there is no other allegation that would become the ingredients of the offences as afore-quoted. This, in the considered view of this Court would not suffice, as it would not become the ingredients as obtaining under Section 498-A of the IPC. Section 498-A of the IPC reads

¶81

as follows:

¶82

498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty .—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

¶83

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means—

¶84

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

¶85

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]"

¶86

Section 498-A of the IPC requires two acts on the part of the

¶87

accused; demand should be made and for fulfilling the said demand, harassment should be meted out. There is no foundation laid in the complaint or in the summary of the charge sheet against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 - accused Nos.2 to 4,

¶88

11 -

¶89

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶90

while the entire allegations are completely against accused No.1, husband. If the further trial as contended by the learned counsel for complainant and Addl. SPP is permitted to continue, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case

¶91

of K AHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS V. STATE

¶92

OF BIHAR AND OTHERS¹ , wherein it has held as follows:

¶93

"Issue involved

¶94

10. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions 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 appellant in-laws are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?

¶95

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.

¶96

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)

¶97

1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162

¶98

12 -

¶99

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶100

“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 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.”

¶101

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)

¶102

“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.”

¶103

14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7

¶104

13 -

¶105

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶106

SCC 667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)

¶107

“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.

¶108

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.

¶109

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

¶110

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

¶111

14 -

¶112

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶113

would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.

¶114

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.”

¶115

15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21)

¶116

“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)

¶117

‘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.’

¶118

15 -

¶119

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶120

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

¶121

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)

¶122

“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.”

¶123

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 in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

¶124

18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, 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 out on account of

¶125

16 -

¶126

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶127

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.

¶128

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.

¶129

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.

¶130

21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the appellant-accused, 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.

¶131

17 -

¶132

NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶133

22. In view of the above facts and discussions, the impugned order dated 13-11-2019 [Mohd. Ikram v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1985] passed by the High Court of Patna is set aside. The impugned FIR No. 248 of 2019 against the appellants under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498-A read with Section 34IPC stands quashed."

¶134

In the light of no offence being found against accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 as also the judgment of the Apex Court quoted supra , permitting further proceedings qua those accused would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.

¶135

11. Insofar as the husband – petitioner No.1 is concerned, as observed, the allegations are found only against him both in the complaint and in the summary of the charge sheet. Therefore, I decline to interfere with the continuing trial against the husband and obliterate all proceedings against accused Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant.

¶136

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶137

ORDER

¶138

(i) The petition is allowed in part.

¶139

18 - NC: 2024:KHC:19411 CRL.P No. 1191 of 2022

¶140

(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.126/2021, pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, against petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 - husband stand sustained.

¶141

(iii) The proceedings in Crime No.126/2021, pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, against petitioner Nos.2 to 4 - accused Nos.2 – 4, stand obliterated.

¶142

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶143

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Mr Mahesha N v. State by East Zone Shivaji Nagar Womens Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mr Mahesha N v. State by East Zone Shivaji Nagar Womens Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Meharaj Sharif Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Parthasarathy Sampathkumar Vs Zuri Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Mr. Saifulla Baig, Vs State of Karnataka

Sheikh Asif Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. White Feather Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagappa Vs Sri a Babu Reddy