Karnataka High Court
Smt.Suvarnalata W/O Gurupadappa ... vs Shri.Vijayalaxmi ... on 4 February, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101360/2019
BETWEEN
SMT.SUVARNALATA W/O GURUPADAPPA MIRJI,
AGE 72 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
NOW AT BANGALORE.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAM P. GHORPADE, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SHRI.VIJAYALAXMI MURUGARAJENDRA MIRJI,
AGE:41 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O 403, ROSEMERRO APARTMENT,
MAHANTESH NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
REPRESENTED BY MAHILA POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI.
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A.R PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., AND PRAYING THAT THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND PENDING ON THE
2
FILE OF THE II JMFC BELAGAVI IN C.C.NO.234/2018 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323, 504 R/W
34 IPC MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER
IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-accused No.2 ; the mother-in-law of
the complainant is before this Court calling in question the
proceedings in Criminal Case No.234/2018 registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 504
read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri Ram P. Ghorpade, learned counsel
appearing for petitioner-accused No.2 and Sri A.R.Patil,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-
complainant as well as learned HCGP appearing for
respondent No.2-State.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present
petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows :
The complainant is the daughter-in-law of the
petitioner. The complainant gets married to the son of the
petitioner on 20.06.2002 and the couple have two children
aged 15 years and 11 years. It is the allegation of the
complainant in the complaint that her husband has been
torturing the complainant right from the date of marriage
both physically and mentally and has time and again
harassed the petitioner to give divorce. On that score, the
complainant appears to have started to live in her parents'
house.
4. It is further allegation of the complainant that the
husband has developed certain relationship outside the
wedlock. On the other ground, inter alia the complainant
registers a complaint on 19.03.2018 alleging the offences
punishable as aforesaid. The narration in the complaint, on
its perusal would clearly indicate that it is entirely against
the husband and matter against others. Insofar as it
pertains to the petitioner;mother-in-law, the only allegation
is that she has on certain occasions instigated the husband
to harass the complainant.
5. The Police after investigation have also filed a
charge sheet in the matter and the summary of the charge
sheet reads as follows :
"¨É¼U
À Á« ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ UÀÄ£Áß £ÀA§gÀ:
19/2018 PÀ®A: 498(J), 323, 504, 506 ¸ÀºÀ PÀ®A 34 L¦¹
£ÉÃzÀÝg°À èAiÀÄ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvzÀæ À PÁ®A £ÀA-17gÀ°è
vÉÆÃj¸ÀĪÀ ¥ÀPæ g À t
À zÀ ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ «ªÀgÀ
---
ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ M¼À¥q À ÀĪÀ
¨É¼UÀ Á« ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ ºÀ¢Ý ¥ÉÊQ ¨É¼U À Á«AiÀÄ
ªÀiÁAvÉñÀ£U À g
À z
À °À è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ EzÀg° À èAiÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄÄ ZÁdð²Ãl PÁ®A £ÀA.12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ
DgÉÆævÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20.06.2002 gÀAzÀÄ DVzÀÄÝ,
ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV
£ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀîz,É ¦üAiÀiÁ𢠪ÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ¥Àw æ AiÉÆAzÀÄ PÀ®¸Àz° À è
ºÉ¸j À lÄÖ »AiÀiÁ½¹ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄgÀ½
¥À²
æ ß¹zÀgÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ ºÁUÉà PÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è
£Á¬ÄAiÀÄAvÉ ©zÀÝgÀÄ E®èAzÀgÉ £À£U À É «ZÉÃÑ zÀ£É PÉÆqÀÄ
CAvÁ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢zÀÝ®èzÉ
DgÉÆæ £ÀA.2 EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ DgÉÆæ C.£ÀA.01 EªÀ¤UÉ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw §Ä¢ÝjÃw ºÉüÀzÉ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ
§AzÀAvÉ CªÁZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÊAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ
§UÉÎ E®è¸® À èz£À ÀÄß ºÉý ºÉÆqɸÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ
«µÀAiÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ vÀ£Àß vÀªgÀ ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ w½¹zÁUÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ
C£ÀA.4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 EªÀgÀÄ §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁj¸ÀzÉ
DgÉÆæ C.£ÀA.01 EªÀ£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ºÉAUÀ¹£ÉÆqÀ£É ¸ÀA§AzsÀ
ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ «ZÉÃÑ zs£ À É PÉÆqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉÆr§r ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ zÉÊ»PÀ
»A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢zÀÝ®èz,É DgÉÆæ C.£ÀA.3 EªÀ£ÄÀ
¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ CªÁZÀåªÁV ¤£Ë£Àß CAvÁ CAvÁ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ
¤ÃªÉãÁzÀgÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä zÉÆqÀØ¥Ààtª Ú g
À ÁzÀ ªÀÄÄgÀÄWÀgÁeÉÃAzÀæ
EªÀjUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆlÖgÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ fêÀ¸À»vÀ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè
CAvÁ fêÀzÀ zsª À ÀÄQ ºÁQzÀÝ®èz,É DgÉÆæ C.£ÀA.1 EªÀ£ÀÄ
¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ªÀÄ£É ©qÀÄ E¯Áè ªÀÄÄqÀÓª®À qÉʪÀ¸ð À UÉ ¸À»
ºÁPÀÄ CAvÁ ¥Àw æ ¢£À »A¸É ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¦üAiÀiÁ𢠸À£ï
2012 gÀ°è vÀ£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÉÆA¢UÉ vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆÃV
G½zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ªÉÄà 2017 gÀ°è ¥ÀÄ£ÀB
¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ DzÀgÉ
DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄ
ªÁgÀzª À g
À U
É É ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV EzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB ªÉÆzÀ°£ÀAvÉ
QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr ¦üAiÀiÁð¢UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ ©lÄÖ vÀ£Àß
¥Á®PÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀiÁV ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ®èz,É DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ
¦AiÀiÁ𢠺ÁUÀÆ ªÀÄPÀ̼À §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃw
PÁ¼ÀfªÀ»¸ÀzÉ ªÀÄÆ® ¸ËPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ MzÀV¹zÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
19/03/2018 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ DAiÀiï
ºÉÆ®£À°è J£À £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛj gÀAqÉ, ¨ÉƸÀqÉ CAvÁ
CªÁZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÊzÀÄ vÀAmÉ vÉU¢ É zÀÝ®èz,É ¤ªÉãÁzÀgÀÆ
¥Éưøï PÀA¥ÉèÃl PÉÆlÖgÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ fêÀ¸À»vÀ ©qÀĪÀÅ¢¯Áè
CAvÁ fêÀzÀ zsª
À ÀÄQ ºÁQzÀÄÝ. DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÀ®A
498(J), 323, 504, 506 ¸ÀºÀ PÀ®A 34 L¦¹ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ
²Q븮À àqÀĪÀAvÀºÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ ªÉ¸V À gÀÄvÁÛg.É "
6. A perusal of the complaint and the charge sheet as
extracted herein above would leave none in doubt that the
only allegation against the petitioner is advising the
husband to harass the complainant. Except this stray
statement, there is no allegation that would drive home the
offence either under Sections 498A and 323 of IPC or
Section 504 of IPC.
7. It is apposite to notice the Judgment rendered by
this Court in the case of Mrs.Prabhavati Gujar and Another
vs. State of Karnataka and Another, in Criminal Petition
No.9364/2018 disposed on 10.11.2021, on the identical
set of facts where the mother-in-law were dragged into the
proceedings initiated by the daughter-in-law for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A of IPC inter alia.
In the said Judgment it is held as follows :
"It is not in dispute that both the petitioners
are not staying with the complainant or with the
couple. The tussle is between the couple viz., the
complainant and her husband. The circumstance that
would emerge in the case at hand is whether, other
family members of the husband could be accused of
offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC. This
has been considered by the Apex Court in the cases
of PREETI GUPTA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF
JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER-(2010) 7 SCC 6667;
GEETA MEHROTRA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF
U.P. & ANOTHER -(2012) 10 SCC 741; AND
RASHMI CHOPRA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS - (2019) 15 SCC
357. The Apex Court in the case of PREETI GUPTA
(supra) has held as follows :
"28. We have very carefully
considered the averments of the complaint
and the statements of all the witnesses
recorded at the time of the filing of the
complaint. There are no specific
allegations against the appellants in the
complaint and none of the witnesses have
alleged any role of both the appellants.
29. Admittedly, Appellant 1 is a
permanent resident of Navasari, Surat,
Gujarat and has been living with her
husband for more than seven years.
Similarly, appellant no.2 is a permanent
resident of Goregaon, Maharasthra.
They have never visited the place where
the alleged incident had taken place.
They had never lived with respondent
no.2 and her husband. Their implication
in the complaint is meant to harass and
humiliate the husband's relatives. This
seems to be the only basis to file this
complaint against the appellants.
Permitting the complainant to pursue
this complaint would be an abuse of the
process of law.
30. It is a matter of common
knowledge that unfortunately
matrimonial litigation is rapidly
increasing in our country. All the courts
in our country including this court are
flooded with matrimonial cases. This
clearly demonstrates discontent and
unrest in the family life of a large
number of people of the society.
31. The courts are receiving a large
number of cases emanating from section
498-A of the Indian Penal Code which
reads as under:-
"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.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this
section, `cruelty' means:-
(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
(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."
32. It is a matter of common experience that
most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC
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.
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 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 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.
... ... ... ...
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.
(Emphasis supplied)
Later the Apex Court in the case of GEETA
MEHROTRA (supra) has held as follows :
"25. However, we deem it appropriate to
add by way of caution that we may not be
misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are
allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of
the members of the family named in the FIR in a
given case, cognizance would be unjustified but
what we wish to emphasize by highlighting is that,
if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific
allegation against accused more so against the co-
accused specially in a matter arising out of
matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of
the legal and judicial process to mechanically send
the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial
unless of course the FIR discloses specific
allegations which would persuade the court to take
cognizance of the offence alleged against the
relatives of the main accused who are prima facie
not found to have indulged in physical and mental
torture of the complainant-wife. It is the well
settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to
mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the
commission of an offence, the court would be
justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the
abuse of the process of law. Simultaneously, the
courts are expected to adopt a cautious
approach in matters of quashing, especially in
cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR
in fact discloses commission of an offence by
the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR
prima facie discloses a case of overimplication
by involving the entire family of the accused at
the instance of the complainant, who is out to
settle her scores arising out of the teething
problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while
settling down in her new matrimonial
surrounding.
26. In the case at hand, when the brother
and unmarried sister of the principal accused
Shyamji Mehrotra approached the High Court for
quashing the proceedings against them, inter alia,
on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as
also on the ground that no case was made out
against them under Sections 498-A/323/504/506
IPC including Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, it was the legal duty of the High Court to
examine whether there were prima facie material
against the appellants so that they could be
directed to undergo the trial, besides the question
of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court seems to
have overlooked all the pleas that were raised and
rejected the petition on the solitary ground of
territorial jurisdiction giving liberty to the
appellants to approach the trial court.
27. The High Court in our considered
opinion appears to have missed that assuming
the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was
still left to be decided whether it was a fit case
to send the appellants for trial when the FIR
failed to make out a prima facie case against
them regarding the allegation of inflicting
physical and mental torture to the complainant
demanding dowry from the complainant. Since
the High Court has failed to consider all these
aspects, this Court as already stated
hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to
the High Court to consider whether a case was
made out against the appellants to proceed
against them. But as the contents of the FIR
does not disclose specific allegation against the
brother and sister of the complainant's husband
except casual reference of their names, it would
not be just to direct them to go through
protracted procedure by remanding for
consideration of the matter all over again by the
High Court and make the unmarried sister of the
main accused and his elder brother to suffer the
ordeal of a criminal case pending against them
specially when the FIR does not disclose
ingredients of offence under Sections
498-A/323/504/506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act.
28. We, therefore, deem it just and
legally appropriate to quash the proceedings
initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra
and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose
any material which could be held to be
constituting any offence against these two
appellants. Merely by making a general
allegation that they were also involved in
physical and mental torture of respondent No.2
complainant without mentioning even a single
incident against them as also the fact as to how
they could be motivated to demand dowry when
they are only related as brother and sister of
the complainant's husband, we are pleased to
quash and set aside the criminal proceedings
insofar as these appellants are concerned and
consequently the order passed by the High
Court shall stand overruled. The appeal
accordingly is allowed."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the case of RASHMI CHOPRA (supra) the
Apex Court has held as follows :
"18. Learned counsel for the
appellant has also relied on various judgments
of this Court in support of his submissions. In
K. Subba Rao and Others Vs. State of
Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452, this Court laid
down following in paragraph Nos.5 and 6 :
(SCC p. 454)
"5. A perusal of the charge-sheet and the
supplementary charge-sheet discloses the fact that
the appellants are not the immediate family
members of the third respondent/husband. They
are the maternal uncles of the third respondent.
Except the bald statement that they supported the
third respondent who was harassing the second
respondent for dowry and that they conspired with
the third respondent for taking away his child to
the U.S.A., nothing else indicating their
involvement in the crime was mentioned. The
appellants approached the High Court when the
investigation was pending. The charge-sheet and
the supplementary charge-sheet were filed after
disposal of the case by the High Court.
6. Criminal proceedings are not normally
interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless
there is an abuse of the process of a court. This
Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to
interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Suppl. (1) SCC 335.
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. See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000)
5 SCC 207 and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of
U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
536])."
... ... ... ....
24. Coming back to the allegations
in the complaint pertaining to Section
498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act. A perusal of
the complaint indicates that the allegations
against the appellants for offence
under Section 498A and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act
are general and sweeping. No specific incident
dates or details of any incident has been
mentioned in the complaint. The complaint
having been filed after proceeding for divorce
was initiated by Nayan Chopra in State of
Michigan, where Vanshika participated and
divorce was ultimately granted. A few months
after filing of the divorce petition, the
complaint has been filed in the Court of C.J.M.,
Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as
noticed above. The sequence of the events and
facts and circumstances of the case leads us to
conclude that the complaint under Section
498A and Section 3/4 of D.P.Act have been
filed as counter blast to divorce petition
proceeding in State of Michigan by Nayan
Chopra.
25. There being no specific allegation
regarding any one of the applicants except
common general allegation against
everyone i.e. "they started harassing the
daughter of the applicant demanding
additional dowry of one crore" and the fact
that all relatives of the husband, namely,
father, mother, brother, mother's sister and
husband of mother's sister have been roped
in clearly indicate that application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed with
a view to harass the applicants. Further,
prior to filing of the application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. there was no
complaint at any point of time by the girl or
her father making allegation of demand of
any dowry by any one of the applicants.
When both Nayan Chopra and Vanshika
started living separately since November,
2013, had there been any dowry demand or
harassment the girl would have given
complaint to Police or any other authority.
Further, in the divorce proceedings at
Michigan, U.S.A., parties have agreed for
dividing their properties including gifts
given at marriage but no complaint was
made in those proceedings regarding
harassment by her husband or his family
members . . . . . . . . . ."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, which
were all cases concerning arraigning of all family
members of the husband without there being any
cause shown or allegations made in the complaint or
the FIR, has interfered and quashed the proceedings
and has also directed that in such cases Courts
should interfere and not permit the trial to
degenerate into harassment to other members of the
family."
8. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in CC.No.234/2018 on the
file of II-JMFC, Belagavi stands quashed
qua petitioner-accused No.2.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made
in the course of this order would not
influence or bind the trial against any of
the other accused.
SD/-
JUDGE
CKK
