Ramu S/O Shankreppa Baigeri vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2081 Kant

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                           BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

            CRIMINAL PETITION No. 100440 OF 2021

BETWEEN

1.    RAMU S/O SHANKREPPA BAIGERI
      AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
      R/O KANAMADI, TQ AND DIST VIJAYPURA-560040.

2.    MALLAPPA DIVATAGI
      AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: STAFF NURSE,
      R/O VIJAYNAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,
      BALLARI-583101.

3.    ROSALIN DIVATAGI
      AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: STAFF NURSE,
      R/O VIJAYNAGAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE,
      BALLARI-583101.

4.    RAVOOT S/O SHARANAPPA CHAMBAR
      AGE 45 YEARS, OCC. STAFF NURSE,
      R/O KALABURGI-585101.
                                                ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R. H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      WOMEN POLICE STATION,
      HUBBALLI, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011.
                               2




2.   SMT. NAGARTNA W/O MALLIKARJUN KODEKALMATH,
     AGE 27 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O HOUSE NO.35,KALE LAYOUT,
     SHANIT NAGAR, KESHWAPUR,
     HUBBALLI-580009.
     PRESENT. BASAV GURUKULA,
     JAGAJYOTI NAGAR, SAI MANDIR,
     KALBURGI-585101.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;
     SRI. MAHANTESH S HIREMATH, ADV., FOR R2)



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,

SEEKING TO KINDLY ALLOW THE PETITION AND KINDLY CALL FOR

RECORDS AND KINDLY QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS I.E. ACCUSED NO.3 TO 6 IN

WOMMEN   POLICE   STATION,   HUBBALLI    AT     THEIR   P.S.   CRIME

NO.16/2020, DATED 01/05/2020 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE

UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 323 AND 149 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND

4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III

ADDITIONAL   CIVIL   JUDGE     AND      JMFC,     HUBBALLI      AND

CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.



     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3




                             ORDER

1. Petition calls in question the proceedings in Crime

No.16/2020 registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 323 and 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act pending before the III Addl. Civil

Judge and JMFC, Hubballi.

2. Heard Sri.R.H.Angadi learned counsel for

petitioners and Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP for

respondent-State.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition

as borne out from the pleadings are:

The relationship of the parties to the lis are germane to

be noticed at the out set. The 2nd respondent -complainant is

the wife of the accused No1, who is not before the Court. The

petitioners before the Court, are uncle of the accused No.1

and accused Nos. 4 and 5-petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are

relatives of the husband and accused No.6.-Petitioner No.4 is

a stranger who has dragged into the proceedings. It is

submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the parties

that after registration of the subject complaint, the husband

and the wife have sought annulment of their marriage in

M.C.No.344/2021 and the same is decreed, and the marriage

is dissolved by the order of the Family Court, Hubballi by its

judgment dated 9/11/2021. Therefore, the husband and the

wife have parted ways for the present.

The present petition is filed by the relatives and other

members of the family. A perusal at the complaint dated

14/2/2020 registered by the 2nd respondent would clearly

indicate that the allegations are all against the husband and

few stray sentences about the members of the family, who

did reside with the complainant. Insofar as the petitioners are

concerned, a perusal of the complaint would not indicate any

act that would touch upon the offences under 498A and 323

of IPC. It is not in dispute that the first petitioner did not

reside with the couple. Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are close

relatives and petitioner 4 is no way concerned with the

squabble between the couple. Therefore, it is a case where all

other petitioners are dragged into the web of the crime by

the complaint registered by the complainant. Permitting

further proceedings to be continued against the petitioner in

the case at hand would result in miscarriage of justice and

would be an abuse of process of law. The view of mine in this

regard is fortified by the latest judgment of the Apex court

rendered in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors.

Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., in Criminal Appeal No.195/2020,

disposed off on 8.2.2022, wherein the Apex Court held as

follows:

11. 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 in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?

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.

13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 10 SCC 472, has observed:-

"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 the Act 46 of 1983. The expression 'cruelty' in Section 498A 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. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under 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 visualized. 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."

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, bed- ridden grandfathers and grand- mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."

15. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been observed:-

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A 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 498A 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.

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

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 husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of 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 would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

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."

16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed:-

"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao vs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 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:

"there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, 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 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 reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the 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." The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes."

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."

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.

19. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, 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 12 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 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.

20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as

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 Ld. 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 01.04.19, is 13 distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.

4. The earlier judgment of the Preeti Gupta, Geeta

Manhotra and Rashmi Chopra wherein the Apex court had

delineated the issue of the other members of the family who

have nothing to do with the allegations made in the

complaint, being dragged into the criminal proceedings.

5. In the light of the latest judgment rendered by the

Apex court which has considered the entire spectrum of law,

I deem it appropriate to allow the criminal petition.

ORDER

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

ii) The proceedings in Crime No.16/2020 pending before

the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi stands quashed

qua petitioners.

SD JUDGE Vb/-