Ramesh G .H. S/O Hanumanthappa vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1909 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

          CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100365/2021

BETWEEN

1.   RAMESH G .H. S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
     JSW TORANAGALLU, TQ.- SANDUR,
     DIST. BALLARI-583123.

2.   HANUMANTHAPPA G.,
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC.- AGRICULTURE,
     R/O. SOKKE VILLAGE, TQ. JAGALURU,
     DIST. DAVANAGERE-577528.

3.   NARAMMA W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. SOKKE VILLAGE, TQ. JAGALURU,
     DIST. DAVANAGERE-577528.

4.   BASAVARAJA G.H. S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
     R/O.S-3, THIRD FLOOR, ITTINA DEVA APARTMENT,
     RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, YADAVANAHALLI,
     ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUKA,
     BENGALURU-562107.

5.   ANASUYAMMA H.G. W/O. SIDDESH K.T.,
     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O.KALLENAHALLI, TQ. JAGALURU,
     DIST. DAVANAGERE-577528.
                             2




6.   BHARATHI G.H. W/O. NAGARAJ K.C.,
     AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,,
     R/O.KALLENAHALLI, TQ. JAGALUR,
     DIST. DAVANAGERE-577528.

7.   LALITHA G.H. D/O. HANUMANTHAPPA G.,
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE SERVICE,
     R/O. KUSHI, PG ACCOMMODATION FOR
     GIRLS AND WORKING LADIES NO.3043,
     17TH CROSS, PRAGATHI LAYOUT,
     DODDANAKUNDI, BENGALURU-560037.
                                        ...PETITIONERS
     (BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
     KOTTUR POLICE STATION,
     REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     DHARWAD.

2.   SMT VANI W/O. RAMESH
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. TEACHER,
     R/O. L.B.SHASHTRI EXTENSION, KOTTUR,
     TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583134
                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(BY SRI BASAVANAGOUDA T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDERED DATED 23/12/2020 IN C.C.NO.259/2020 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUDLIGI AND
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO AGAINST THE PETITIONERS
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 498A OF IPC
                               3




1860 AND UNDER SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION
ACT HEREIN.

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

                           ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in

question the proceedings in Criminal Case No.259/2020

pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi for

the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 498A of

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961 (for short, 'the DP Act').

2. Heard Shri Aravind D. Kulkarni, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Ramesh

Chigari, the learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1-

State and Sri Basavanagouda T., learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.2-complainant.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present

petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows :

The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The 1st

petitioner-accused No.1 is the husband of complainant. The

2nd petitioner-accused No.2 is the father-in-law of the

complainant. The 3rd petitioner is the mother-in-law.

Petitioner No.4 is the brother-in-law. Petitioner Nos.5, 6

and 7 are sisters-in-law. The relationship of the parties to

the lis is as stated herein above. The 1st accused and the

complainant get married on 08.07.2019. The relationship

between the 1st petitioner and the complainant appear to

have turned sore and according to the complaint, the

complainant leaves matrimonial house and resides with her

parents owing to two factors. One for harassment by the

husband and other owing to her avocation as she was a

Teacher. The complaint is registered on 10.02.2020. Prior

to the registration of the complaint, the first petitioner-

husband had instituted proceedings under Section 9 of the

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal

rights.

4. The competent Court before whom the proceeding

with regard to restitution of conjugal rights was instituted

issues notice on the respondent-wife and the said notice is

served by the complainant wife on 18.01.2020.

Immediately on receipt of the notice on 18.01.2020, the

complainant registers the complaint on 10.02.2020.

Pursuant to the said complaint, a FIR is registered for the

offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections

3 and 4 of the D.P.Act. The Police after investigation have

also included the offence punishable under Section 323 of

IPC. It is at that juncture the petitioners have knocked the

doors of this Court.

5. The learned counsel Sri Aravind D. Kulkarni,

appearing for petitioners would vehemently argue and

contend that there is no allegation worth the name in the

complaint against any of the petitioners. Even according to

the complainant, she has stayed in the matrimonial house

only for 2-3 days and there being no allegation. The family

members simply dragged into the criminal proceedings. It

is infact the 1st petitioner, who is wanting the complainant

to come back and he has also instituted proceedings for

restitution of conjugal rights.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing

for respondent No.2-complainant would vehemently refute

the same and seek to submit that it is a matter of trial that

the petitioners have come out clean.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective counsel and have

perused the material on record.

8. Since the entire issue springs from the complaint

and I deem it appropriate to extract the complaint for the

purpose of quick reference:

"UÉ, ¥ÉÆð¸ï ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥PÉ ÀÖgï, DgÀPÀëPg À oÁuÉ, PÉÆlÆÖgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ,

£Á£ÀÄ ªÁt ¥Ánïï W/o. gÀªÉÄñÀ f.JZï.

ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì : 34, GzÉÆåÃUÀ: ²PÀëP,À ªÉÆÃ.£ÀA.: 8050134530 PÉÆlÆÖgÀÄ, PÉÆlÆÖgÀÄ (vÁ) §¼Áîj (f) ±Á¹Ûç §qÁªÀuA É iÀÄ°è ºÁ° ªÀ¸wÀ , ¸À.».¥Áæ.±Á¯É GvÀÛ£ÀÆgÀÄ ¹gÀÄUÀÄ¥Àà (vÁ) DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀ ¦gÁå¢ K£ÉAzÀg,É

£ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ 4 d£À ªÀÄPÀ̽zÀÄÝ, 1£Éà ¥ÀA¥À£U À ËqÀ, 2£Éà ±ÉÆèsÀ ¥Ánïï, 3£Éà ZÀAzÀ± æ ÃÉ RgÀ, 4£Éà £Á£ÀÄ F jÃw EzÀÄÝ J¦æïï wAUÀ¼° À è 2019 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è dUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ (vÁ) ¸ÉÆPÉÌ UÁæªÀÄzÀ gÀªÉÄñÀ f.JZï. (34) fAZÁ¯ï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è EAf¤ÃAiÀÄgï DV EªÀgÀÄ vÀAzÉ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà (61) vÁ¬Ä £ÁUÀªÀÄä (60) vÀªÀÄä §¸Àªg À Ád (30)CPÀÌvA À VAiÀÄgÁzÀ C£ÀĸÀÆAiÀÄ (31), ¨sÁgÀw(32) ®°vÀ (33) £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÉÆÃr M¦àPÉÆAzÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Àé®à ¢£ÀU¼ À °À èAiÉÄà £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀªg À ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É £ÉÆÃqÀ°PÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ M¦àUA É iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÝjAzÀ C°èAiÉÄà ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ £Àqz É ÀÄ ¤²ÑvÁxÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ »A¢£À ¢£À £Égª À ÃÉ j¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÁÛg.É ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃUÀ£ÃÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀzÃÉ ¥ÀzÃÉ MvÀÛqÀª£ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ EgÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀgzÀ QÀ ëuA É iÀiÁV 50,000/- ¨É¯É ¨Á¼ÀĪÀ ¨ÁAqÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ, 50,000/- ¨É¯É ¨Á¼ÀĪÀ §mÉÖU¼ À £ À ÀÄß 5 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀª£ À ÀÄß ªÀg¤À UÉ ªÀgz À QÀ ëuAÉ iÀiÁV ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀj¦æÃAiÀÄ PÀ£ª À ¤É êAiÀÄ¯ï ºÁ¯ï£À°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr PÉÆqÀ¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ. CzÀgA À vÉAiÉÄà ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08-07-2019 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆlÆÖj£À ºÀj¦æAiÀÄ PÀ£ª À ¤ É êAiÀÄ¯ï ºÁ®£À°è UÀÄgÀÄ»jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÉÆA¢UÉ £À£Àß «ªÁºÀ DVzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀg¤ À UÉ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÉýzÀAvÀ ªÀgz À QÀ ëuA É iÀiÁV 5 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ, PÉÆgÀ¼À ZÉÊ£À¸gÀ ,À GAUÀÄgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ

8,00,000/- RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÄÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¢£ÀzA À zÉ ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀgz À ÀQëuÉ «µÀAiÀĪÁV £À£ßÀ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄgÉÆA¢UÉ dUÀ¼ª À ÁrzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ UÀÄgÀÄ»jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ±ÁAvÀªÁvÀªg À tÀ zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¸ÉÆPÉÌ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. ¸Àzj À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ £ÁUÀªÀÄä, ªÀiÁªÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà, UÀAqÀ£À vÀªÀÄä §¸ÀªÁæd, £Á¢¤AiÀÄgÁzÀ C£ÀĸÀÆAiÀÄ, ¨sÁgÀw ®°vÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸Àé®à ¢£ÀU¼ À À PÁ® C°èAiÉÄà EzÀÄÝ, C°èAzÀ 2-3 ¢£ÀU¼ À À PÁ® ±Á¯ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV §AzÉ£ÀÄ. DUÀ®Ä CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ ¸À®ÄªÁV vÀÄA¨Á »A¹¸ÀvÉÆqÀVzÀgÀÄ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÉa£ Ñ À ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀAzÀgÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¨Á¼ÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä M¦àUÉ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß fêÀ£À ºÁ¼ÀÄ DUÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸Àé®à ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß MqÀªU É ¼À £À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÉ, DUÀ®Ä CªÀgÀÄ vÀÈ¥ÀÛgÁUÀ°®è. EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÁ¼À¯ÁgÀzÃÉ E§âjUÀÆ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ C£ÀÄPÀÆ®ªÁUÀĪÀAvÉ §¼ÁîjAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÉÆÃt JAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ££ À ÀÄß PÉýzÁUÀ MAzÀÄ µÀgw À Û£À ªÉÄÃ¯É M¦àzg À ÀÄ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¤£Àß J¯Áè MqÀªÉU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀgÀĪÀÅzÁzÀgÉ M¥ÀÄàªÉ JAzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ M¦à 21 vÉÆ® EgÀĪÀ £À£Àß MqÀªU É ¼À ÀÄ (4 UÀ¼UÉ ¼ À ÀÄ, ¯ÁAUÀ ZÉÊ£ï, EAiÀÄjAUïì, ªÀAQ, £ÀP° À ¸ï) £ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ §¼Áîj £ÀUg À zÀ À ¥ÁªÀðw £ÀUgÀ z À ° À è ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrzɪÀÅ. PÉÆlÖ ªÀiÁw£ÀAvÉ EªÀgÀ PÀÄrvÀª£ À ÀÄß ¤°è¹gÀ°®è. «¥ÀjÃvÀ PÀÄrzÀÄ §AzÀÄ »A¹¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝU½ À AzÀ ¤A¢¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ. zÉÊ»PÀ ºÀ¯ÉèAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÝÀ . C®èzÃÉ

¢£À¤vÀåzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ËPÀAiÀÄðUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß MzÀV¸ÀÄwÛg° À ®è. £À£Àß ²Ã®zÀ §UÉÎAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ¥ÀqÀÄwÛzÀÝ 10-12 ªÀµð À zÀ ¸ÀA§¼Àª£ À ÀÄß J°è EnÖ¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ »A¹¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ, EzÀ£Àß CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄUÀ¼À §½ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ PÀÆqÁ CªÀgÀÄ D ªÀÄUÀ£À ¥ÀgÀ ¤AvÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ zÀÄrzÀ ¸ÀA§¼Àª£ À ÀÄß PÉüÀĪÀÅzÀg° À è vÀ¥ÉàãÀÄ? JAzÀgÀÄ.

MAzÀÄ ¢£À ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£U À É ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀg¯ À ÃÉ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÀÆUÁrzÀ EzÀPÉÌ M¥ÀàzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝU½ À AzÀ ¤A¢¹, zÉÊ»PÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr £À£ÀߣÀÄß §¼Áîj ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀºÁQzÀ, GlÖ §mÉÖAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß ºÉÆgÀ£ÀÆQzÀ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÀ½UÉ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß w½¹zÁUÀ vÀAzÉ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzsÀågÁwæ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgzÉ ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀºÁQzÁUÀ £À£Àß §mÉÖU¼À ÀÄ PÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀvU Àæ ¼ À ÀÄ ºÀt §AUÁgÀ £À£Àß ªÀ¸ÀÄÛU¼ À £ À ÀÄß QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. EµÉÖ¯Áè DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀAZÀgÀ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ¸ÀA§A¢üPj À UÀÆ §Ä¢Ý ºÉýzÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ PÉüÀzÃÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 06-10-2019 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £ÀÄVÎ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É zÉÊ»PÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. ©Ã¢AiÀÄ°è J¯Áè J¼ÉzÁrzÀgÀÄ. EA¢UÀÆ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄUÉ ºÁ¹UÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ªÉÄïɼ® À Ä DUÀÄwÛ®è.

F ªÉÄð£À «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ gÀªÉÄñÀ f.JZï. ªÀiÁªÀ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ¥Àà CvÉÛ £ÁUÀªÀÄä, ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À §¸Àªg À Ád, £Á¬ÄAiÀiÁgÁzÀ C£À¸ÀÆAiÀÄ, ¨sÁgÀw C°vÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀgzÀ QÀ ëuAÉ iÀÄ ¸À®ÄªÁV »A¹¹ C®èzÉ ¥ÀzÃÉ ¥ÀzÃÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀªg À À ªÉÄÃ¯É zÉÊ»PÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀÄzÀjAzÀ F ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É ºÁUÉAiÉÄà EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀª æ ÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢."

9. A perusal at the complaint would indicate certain

overt acts by the husband, which the complainant narrates

that he used to torture the complainant after getting drunk

and also harass the complainant demanding the salary that

the complainant had earned for 10 to 12 years. The further

statement recorded by the Police while investigation also

indicates that the allegations are against the husband in its

entirety. Insofar as the other members of the family, the

mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law or sisters-in-

law there is even not whisper of allegation in the entire

complaint, as a matter of fact, the sisters-in-law do not

even reside with the couple.

10. The observations of the Police while filing the

charge sheet in column No.17 would also indicate that the

entire allegations are against the 1st petitioner-husband

and allegation with regard to the demand of dowry is made

against the other accused. Therefore, looking at the

complaint, the statement of the complainant and the

findings of the investigation as found in the summary of

the charge sheet, all would lead to on unmistakable

conclusion that the allegations are primarily against the

husband, and other members of the family;father-in-law,

mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sisters-in-law are

dragged into these proceedings without their being any

overt act alleged against them. Therefore, the proceedings

against other members of the family, if permitted to

continue, would result in miscarriage of justice. The view of

mine in this regard is fortified by the Judgments rendered

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra

and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, wherein the Apex Court

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."

11. The aforesaid judgment is again followed by the

Apex Court in the case of Rashmi Chopra vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2019) 15

SCC 357, wherein 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:-

"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."

Xxxx xxxx xxx

Xxxx xxxx xxx

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."

12. Therefore, the proceedings in the light of the facts

obtaining in the case at hand and narration of facts in the

Judgments referred (supra), the proceedings against the

other members of the family-petitioner Nos.2 to 7 would

stand obliterated.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The proceedings in Criminal Case No.

259/2020 pending on the file of Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Kudligi against the 1st

petitioner-accused No.1 stands sustained.

(iii) The proceedings in Criminal Case

No.259/2020 pending on the file of Senior

Civil Judge and JMFC, Kudligi stands

obliterated qua petitioner Nos.2 to 7.

(iv) It is made clear that the observations made

in the course of the order is only on

consideration of the case of petitioners

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. would not

influence the trial Court in proceeding

against the 1st petitioner-accused No.1.

SD JUDGE CKK