Karnataka High Court

Smt.Sujata D/O Anant Midlagajani vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                           BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100181/2020

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT.SUJATA D/O ANANT MIDLAGAJANI
     W/O. JAYAWANT AGHANASHINI
     AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE,
     R/O: M.H.P.S., SHIRALLI COMPOUND,
     BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

2.   SMT.SMITA D/O ANANT MIDLAGAJANI
     W/O RAMACHANDRA HARIKANT,
     AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O: HOUSE NO.1203,
     SRI SAIKRUPA BUILDING,
     CITB LAYOUT SDM DENTAL COLLEGE
     SATTUR, VANASIRI NAGAR, DHARWAD.

3.   SMT.MARIA SACORRO COLACO
     W/O SACORRO COLACO,
     AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
     R/O: HOUSE NO.347-A, MOBOR WARD,
     SALCET CAVELOSSIM,
     CAVELOSSIM SOUTH GOA,
     STATE: GOA-403731.

4.   ANANT SHIVU MIDLAGAJANI @
     HARIKANTRA
     AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
     R/O: HOLANGADDE, TQ: KUMTA,
     DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

5.   SMT.GIRIJA ANANT MIDLAGAJANI @
     HARIKANTRI
                                  2




     AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O: HOLANGADDE, TQ: KUMTA,
     DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

6.   VINOD S/O ANANT MIDLAGAJANI
     AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE,
     R/O: HOLANGADDE, TQ: KUMTA,
     DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

7.   JAYANT S/O MAHABALA AGHANASHINI
     AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE,
     R/O: M.H.P.S., SHIRALLI COMPOUND,
     BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.

8.   RAMACHANDRA S/O GANAPATI HARIKANT
     AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE,
     R/O: HOUSE NO.1203,
     SRI SAIKRUPA BUILDING,
     CITB LAYOUT SDM DENTAL COLLEGE
     SATTUR, VANASIRI NAGAR, DHARWAD.
                                             ...PETITIONERS.
(BY SHRI T R PATIL, ADVOCATE.)


AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR OF
     KUMTA P.S.,
     REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
     HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

2.   SMT.NIRMALA
     W/O NAVEEN MIDLAGAJANI
     AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O: HOLANGADDE, TQ: KUMTA,
     DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP, FOR R.1;
SHRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE, FOR R.2.)
                                    3




      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.623/2020 ARISING OUT OF THE CRIME
NO.209/2019 OF KUMTA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL
JDUGE & JMFC COURT, KUMTA, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498A, 323, 504, 506 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, INSOFAR AS THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN / ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NOS.2 TO 9
RESPECTIVELY, ETC.,.

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

                               ORDER

Heard Shri T.R.Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and Shri Ramesh Chigari, the learned HCGP

appearing for the respondent no.1 State and Shri Vishwanath

Hegde, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.

2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in

question the proceedings in C.C.No.623/2020, pending on the

file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kumta, registered for the

offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

3. The facts in brief are as follows:

a) The relationship between the petitioners and the

complainant is required to be noticed at the outset. The

petitioners no.1 and 2 are the sisters-in-law of the complainant

The petitioners no.3, 6, 7 and 8 are brothers-in-law of the

complainant. The petitioners no.4 and 5 are father-in-law and

mother-in-law of the complainant. The accused no.1 is the

husband who is not before the Court. The petitioners are

accused nos.2 to 9 in the aforesaid criminal case. The marriage

between the accused no.1 and the complainant takes place on

13.5.2018. What could be gathered from the complaint is that

the relationship between the accused and the complainant was

getting strained by the day and when it reached an inevitable

stage a legal notice is issued on 15.7.2019 seeking annulment

of marriage, pursuant to which the husband accused no.1 also

files a petition for divorce in M.C.No.181/2019 before the

competent Court.

b) After the filing of the said petition for divorce, a

complaint is registered by the 2nd respondent on 29.11.2019 for

the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The police after

investigation have filed a charge sheet against all the accused in

the matter. It is at that juncture the petitioners who are

accused nos.2 to 9 have knocked the doors of this Court in this

subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would take this Court through the contents of the complaint and

would contend that there are no allegations against any other

member of the family who are the petitioners in this petition.

The entire allegation of the complainant is against the

husband/accused no.1 who is not before this Court. Therefore,

the proceedings if permitted to be continued against the

petitioners, it would be an abuse of process of law is the

emphatic submission.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondent complainant would vehemently refute the

submissions made and contend that the complaint narrates

certain circumstances against the other members of the family

who are dragged into these proceedings.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and

have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-quoted facts with regard to marriage of

the accused no.1 with the 2nd respondent complainant is not in

dispute. The relationship that is narrated in the course of this

order between the complainant and the petitioners is also not in

dispute. Since the entire issue springs from the complaint, it is

germane to notice the complaint and is extracted for the

purpose of ready reference, as under.


     jUÉ,
     ¦.J¸ï.L, PÀÄªÀÄmÁ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸À oÁuÉ,

     jAzÀ,
     ²æÃªÀÄw ¤ªÀÄð® £À«Ã£À «ÄqÀèUd      À ¤,

ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì : 32 ªÀµðÀ , ªÀÈwÛ : ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÉ®¸À, «¼Á¸À: ºÉÆ®£ÀUz À ÉÝ ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvÀ ºÀwÛg,À PÀÄªÀÄmÁ. ªÉÆ:9449759213.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

£À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ F ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ F ªÉÄÃ°£ÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛz.É £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è vÀAzÉ- ¨Á§Ä ºÀjPÀAvÀ,æ vÁ¬Ä- ®°vÁ ºÀjPÀAvÀ,æ CPÀÌ ±ÁAw ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgg À ÁzÀ F±ÀégÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀÆr ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛg.É ¢£ÁAPÀ :

     13/05/2018 gÀAzÀÄ ºÉÆ®£ÀUz              À ÉÝ Hj£À £À«Ã£À C£ÀAvÀ
     «ÄqÀèUd  À ¤, ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì : 42 ªÀµð           À , FvÀ¤UÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ
     vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ           UÀÄgÀÄ»jAiÀÄgÀ        C£ÀÄªÀÄwAiÀÄAvÉ      £À£Àß£ÀÄß
     UÁæªÀÄ MPÀÌ°UÀ             ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄ        ¨sª
                                                      À £
                                                        À z
                                                          À °
                                                            À è        »AzÀÆ
     ¸ÀA¥Àz æ ÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ.             ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÉÃ¼É
     £ÀªÀÄä       vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ £À£U  À É ªÀÄÆgÀÄ vÉÆ¯ÉAiÀÄ          §AUÁgÀzÀ

£ÀªÀÄ¸ÁÌgÀ §¼ÉU¼ À ÀÄ-2, JgÀqÀÄ vÉÆ¯ÉAiÀÄ §AUÁgÀzÀ UÉÆÃ¢ PÀqÉ

§¼ÉU¼ À ÀÄ-2, ªÀÄÆgÀÄ vÉÆ¯ÉAiÀÄ §AUÁgÀzÀ ºÁgÀ-1, ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄÄPÁÌ®Ä vÉÆ¯ÉAiÀÄ §AUÁgÀzÀ JgÀqÀÄ eÉÆvÉ Q« ¸ÉmïÖ, ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ CzsðÀ vÉÆ¯ÉAiÀÄ §AUÁgÀzÀ GAUÀÄgÀª£ À ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ MAzÀÄ vÉÆ¯ÉAiÀÄ §AUÁgÀzÀ §¯ïâ ZÉÊ£ÀÄ-1 ºÁUÀÆ CzsðÀ vÉÆ¯ÉAiÀÄ §AUÁgÀzÀ GAUÀÄgÀ-1 EªÀÅUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÁtÂUA É iÀiÁV ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÄ.

£À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À«Ã£À C£ÀAvÀ «ÄqÀèUd À ¤ FvÀ£ÀÄ UÉÆÃªÁzÀ°è mÁåQì ZÁ®PÀ£ÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, C°èAiÉÄÃ gÀÆªÀÄÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ EgÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. CªÀ£ÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ 15 ¢£ÀU¼ À ª À gÀ U É É £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝ£ÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19/05/2018 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 8-00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁjUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CPÀÌ ºÁUÀÆ vÀAVAiÀÄA¢gÁzÀ ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ eÉÊªÀAvÀ ºÀjPÁAvÀ, ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì : 45 ªÀµð À , «¼Á¸À: ºÉÆ®£ÀUz À ÉÝ PÀqÉè PÀÄªÀÄmÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹äÃvÁ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ ºÀjPÁAvÀ, ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì : 38 ªÀµð À , «¼Á¸À: ©½ ºÉÆ¬ÄÎ, CAPÉÆÃ¯Á ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ zÉÆqÀØªÀÄä£À ¸ÉÆ¸É ªÀiÁjAiÀiÁ ¸ÀÄPÀÄÌ PÉÆ¯ÁPÉÆÃ, «¼Á¸À: UÉÆÃªÁ gÁdå EªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ «ZÁgÀz° À è £À£Àß eÉÆvÉUÉ dUÀ¼ª À Ár ¤£Àß£ÀÄß F ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ Nr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÁ ºÉÃ½ CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ C£ÀAvÀ ²ªÀÅ «ÄqÀèUd À ¤, ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì : 72 ªÀµð À , gÀªj À UÉ CªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä VjeÁ C£ÀAvÀ «ÄqÀèUd À ¤, ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì :65 ªÀµð À CªÀgÀ CtÚ «£ÉÆÃzÀ C£ÀAvÀ «ÄqÀèUd À ¤, ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì :43 ªÀµð À , ¸ÀÄeÁvÀ¼À UÀAqÀ eÉÊªÀAvÀ ªÉÆ§Äè ºÀjPÁAvÀ, ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì : 50 ªÀµð À , «¼Á¸À : PÀqÉè ºÉÆ®£ÀUz À ÉÝ ºÁUÀÆ ¹äÃvÁ¼À UÀAqÀ gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ ºÀjPÁAvÀ «¼Á¸À: ©½ºÉÆ¬ÄÎ CAPÉÆÃ¯Á gÀªj À UÉ JwÛ PÀnÖzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀg® É ègÀÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ºÁUÉÃ ªÀiÁqÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÃÉ r CAzÁUÀ CªÀg® É ègÀÆ "gÀAqÉÃ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¥Àgª À ÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¤£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀ»¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrÛÃAiÀiÁ, CAvÁ £À£U À É PÉlÖ PÉlÖzÁV ¨ÉÊzÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß J¼ÉzÀÄ zÀÆr ºÁQzÀÝgÀÄ.

£Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ w½¹zÀgÉ ªÀÄvÉÛ zÉÆqÀØzÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ CAvÁ w½zÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ºÉÃ½PÉÆArgÀ°®è. F §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ OµÀzsÉÆÃ¥ÀZÁgÀ ¥Àqz É ÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

£ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ £À£U À É vÉÆAzÀgPÉ ÉÆqÀ®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄªÀAvÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ ©lÄÖ CªÀgÀÄ UÉÆÃªÁPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV vÀªÀÄä gÀÆ«Ä£À°è EzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ ¥sÆ É Ã£ï JvÀÄÛwÛg°À ®è. DªÀgÀÄ £À£U À É ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ¸ÀºÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛg° À ®è. £Á£ÀÄ £ÀA© ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÃÉ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀzÃÉ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ £À£U À É vÀÄA¨Á »A¸ÉAiÀiÁUÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ d£ÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ¬ÄUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄªÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀjAiÀÄgÀÄ £À£UÀ É "¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä¤UÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ºÉt® Ú è, ¤£Àß UÀº æ ZÀ ÁgÀ ¸Àj E®è. £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä¤UÉ UÉÆÃªÁzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ" CAvÁ ¥ÀzÃÉ ¥ÀzÃÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUz É ÀÄ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£U À É EzÀ£ÀÄß ¸À»¸À¯ÁUÀzÃÉ ¸ÁAiÀÄ¨ÉÃPÀÄ C¤ß¸ÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. DzÀgÀÆ zsÉÊAiÀÄð ªÀiÁr F «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CtÚ¤UÉ w½¹zÁV, CªÀgÀÄ ¸À²»vÀÛ® Hj£À £ÁUÁgÁd ©ÃgÀ¥Àà ºÀjPÀAvÀæ gÀªg À ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃzsg À À £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ºÀjPÀAvÀæ gÀªj À UÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄw ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ £Àq¹ É zÁUÀ, CªÀg® É ègÀÆ £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀA§AzsÀ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸Àj §gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV CAvÁ ºÉÃ½zÁUÀ, ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄwzÁgÀgÀÄ J®ègÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀA¥ÉÃè l PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅzÁV ºÉÃ½zÁUÀ, CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ ElÄÖPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ.

LzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄß UÉÆÃªÁPÉÌ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ C°èAiÀÄÄ CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆArgÀ°®è. ¥Àw æ ¤vÀå E®è¸®À zè À PÁgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÃ½ £À£UÀ É ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåªÀÅzÀÄ, ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 2/11/2018 gÀAzÀÄ ¢Ã¥ÁªÀ½ ºÀ§âzÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £À£U À ÉÆ§â½UÉ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ CªÀgÀÄ §A¢gÀ°®è. ¢Ã¥ÁªÀ½ ºÀ§âPÉÌ £À£Àß §AUÁgÀª£ À ÀÄß ¸À»vÀ

CªÀgÃÉ ElÄÖPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ, ¥sÉÆÃ£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛg° À ®è. ¸Àé®à¢£À ©lÄÖ £À£Àß£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ CvÉÛ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á®ÄÌ ¢£À ©lÄÖ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ £À£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ "§lÖgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV §A¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. ¤£Àß UÀº æ ZÀ ÁgÀ ¸Àj E®è. ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ CAvÁ §lÖgÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÁÝg"É CAvÁ w½¹zÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA© £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ G½zÉ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ AiÀiÁgÀÆ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛg° À ®è CªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß PÀgA É iÀÄ®Ä §gÀzÃÉ EzÀÄÝzj À AzÀ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ, CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ " ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ElÄÖPÉÆ½î CªÀ½UÀÆ £ÀªÀÄUÀÆ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ E®è. £ÁªÀÅ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ, CAvÁ ºÉÃ½zÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01/5/2019 gÀAzÀÄ F »AzÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¸À²»vÀÛ® Hj£À £ÁUÁgÁd ©ÃgÀ¥Àà ºÀjPÀAvÀg æ ª À gÀ ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃzsg À À £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ºÀjPÀAvÀæ gÀªj À UÀUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß PÀgzÉ ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀg® É ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß GzÉÝÃ²¹ " ¤£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅ¢®è. ¤ÃªÀÄ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃj ªÀiÁrPÉÆ½î. ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀgÉ fÃªÀ¸» À vÀ ©qÀÄªÀÅ¢®è CAvÁ ¨Ézj À PÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛg.É £ÁªÀÅ ºÉzj À PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. F §UÉÎ PÀÄªÀÄmÁ ªÀÄ»¼Á ¸ÁAvÁé£À PÉÃAzÀz æ ° À è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03/07/2019 gÀAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛz.É DzÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉUÉ «ZÁgÀuU É É ºÁdgÁVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ¸Àj ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛg.É ¤£Àß£ÀÄß PÀgzÉ ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛg.É CAvÁ £À£U À É ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ºÉÃ½zÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ EªÀgU É É PÁzÀÄ ¸ÁPÁV F ¢ªÀ¸À vÀªÀÄä°èUÉ §AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É. £À£U À É PÉlÖ ±À§ÝU½ À AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ, zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃrzÀÝ®èzÃÉ , £À£Àß fÃªÀ£ª À £À ÉßÃ ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ fÃªÀ ¨Ézj À PÉ ºÁQzÀ CªÀg® É ègÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ £À£Àß zÀÆgÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛz.É vÀ¤SÉ DUÀ®Ä «£ÀAw¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. F

zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß CPÀÌ£À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¹AzsÀÄ EªÀ¼À ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgz À ° À è §gÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ.

¸ÀÜ¼:À PÀÄªÀÄmÁ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29/11/2019 ¸À»/-

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¤ªÀÄð® £À«Ã£À «ÄqÀèUd À ¤

8. A perusal at the complaint afore-extracted clearly

brings out several instances of harassment both mental and

physical against the husband accused no.1 and nothing about

the other accused except stray sentences with regard to the

father-in-law without any reference to any particular overtact by

the father-in-law. The other members who are the brothers-in-

law, sisters-in-law are all dragged into the criminal proceedings

without there being an iota of allegation in the complaint. The

police after investigation have filed the charge sheet. The

summary of the charge sheet as found in column no.17 reads as

follows:

17) PÉÃ¹£À ¸ÀAQÛ¥ÀÛ «ªÀgÀ (CªÀ±Àå«zÀÝ°è ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ºÁ¼É ®UÀwÛ¹.) :

(PÀ®A: 498(J), 323,504,506 ¸À»vÀ 34 L.¦.¹.)

ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀÄªÀÄmÁ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸À oÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛAiÀÄ ºÉÆ®£ÀUz À ÉÝ AiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ¦ügÁå¢ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀ

ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀåzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ 1£ÉÃAiÀÄªÀ£ÁzÀ ²æÃ £À«Ã£À C£ÀAvÀ «ÄqÀèUÀd¤, ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì : 42 ªÀµð À , ¸Á: ºÉÆ®£ÀUÀzÉÝ PÀÄªÀÄmÁ FvÀ£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ ²æÃªÀÄw ¤ªÀÄð® £À«Ã£À «ÄqÀèUd À ¤, ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì : 32 ªÀµð À gÀªj À UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13/05/2018 gÀAzÀÄ UÁæªÀÄ MPÀÌ°UÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄ ¨sÀª£ À Àz°À è UÀÄgÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è »AzÀÆ ¸ÀA¥Àzæ ÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀª¤ À zÀÄÝ, DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÁzÀ 2.3. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 £ÉÃªÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß PÉÃ½ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19/05/2018 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 8-00 UÀAmÉUÉ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è G½zÀ EvÀgÀ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ¦ügÁå¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ dUÀ¼ªÀ Ár ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁvÁrzÁUÀ, vÀ£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ºÁUÉÃ ªÀiÁvÁqÀ¨ÃÉ r CAvÁ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄÄ ºÉÃ½zÀÝPÉÌ J¯Áè DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄ ¹mÁÖV ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß GzÉÝÃ²¹ "gÀAqÉÃ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀgÀªÁV ªÀiÁvÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¤£Àß vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀ»¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁvÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ, CAvÁ PÉlÖ PÉlÖ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝU½ À AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, CªÀg£ À ÀÄß zÀÆr ºÁQzÀÝ®èzÃÉ , ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄ eÉÆvÉUÉ ªÀiÁvÁqÀzÃÉ , ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆ¼ÀîzÃÉ , "¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä¤UÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁzÀ ºÉt® Ú è.

¤£Àß UÀº æ ÀZÁgÀ ¸Àj E®è, £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä¤UÉ UÉÆÃªÁzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ" CAvÁ ¥ÀzÃÉ , ¥ÀzÃÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUz É ÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄÄ DvÀäºv À Éå ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃrzÀ C¥ÀgÁzs.À

9. The allegations in the charge sheet commences

against the 1st accused husband and narrate stray instances

against the other accused which cannot touch upon the offence

punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The allegations

against the husband will have to be dealt with by the husband

who is not before the Court. With regard to other members of

the family, there is nothing either in the complaint or in the

afore-extracted column no.17 of the charge sheet except stating

that all of them together have hurled abuses against the

complainant. Except these statements, there is nothing on

record to demonstrate even a semblance of allegation against

other members of the family. Therefore, in my considered view,

if trial against the other members of the family who are the

petitioners herein is permitted, it would be an abuse of process

of the law. The view of mine in this regard is fortified by the

latest judgment of the Apex Court 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.

21. 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 in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.

22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, 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.

10. The Apex Court following all the earlier judgments

on the issue of dragging other members of the family into the

web criminal proceedings without there being any allegations

against them, has reiterated the earlier judgments and has

quashed all the proceedings against other members of the

family.

11. In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand

as narrated and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, I

deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against the

petitioners.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER