Ishwar Bheemappa Talawar vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2375 Kant

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                          BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101439/2021
         C/w. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101667/2021


IN CRL.P.NO.101439/2021
BETWEEN


1.     ISHWAR BHEEMAPPA TALAWAR
       AGE. 74 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
       R/O. ADRASH COLONY, VISHWESHWARAYYA NAGAR,
       BELAGAVI.

2.     KAMALA ISHWAR TALWAR,
       AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. NIL,
       R/O. ADRASH COLONY VISHWESHWARAYYA NAGAR,
       BELAGAVI.
                                        ...PETITIONERS

       (BY SRI HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       R/BY ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       DHARWAD,
       THROUGH MAHILA P.S. BELAGAVI.

2.     ANITA W/O. MANOHAR TALAWAR,
       AGE-41 YEARS, OCC-HOUSEWIFE,
                              2




     R/O. PLOT NO.593, BLOCK NO.4,
     SECTOR NO.5, SHRINAGAR, BELAGAVI.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESONDENT NO.1 )
(SRI.SANTOSH B RAWOOT, ADV., FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)


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

PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF THE MAHILA P.S.

CRIME NO.58/2017 (C.C.NO.149/2018) FOR THE OFFENCES

PUNISHABLE U/SEC.498A, 323, 420, 504 AND 506 OF IPC,

PENDING   ON    THE   FILE       OF   II   JMFC,   BELAGAVI.



IN CRL.P.NO.101667/2021
BETWEEN :

1.   SMT. GEETA SHANKAR KALLOLKAR,
     AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
     R/O. SOCIAL FOREST QUARTERS,
     BEHIND OFFICE OF THE FIRE FIGHTER,
     AFZALPUR TAKKE, TAL AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA.

2.   SHRI SHANKAR KOLLOLKAR,
     AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE -(DFO),
     R/O. SOCIAL FOREST QUARTERS,
     BEHIND OFFICE OF THE FIRE FIGHTER,
     AFZALPUR TAKKE, TAL. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA.

3.   SHRI PRABHAKAR MALAGE,
     AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
     R/O. ADARSH COLONY, BELAGAVI.
                                        ...PETITIONERS
     (BY SRI HARSHAWARDHAN M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
                             3




AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      REPRESENTED BY -
      SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD,
      THROUGH MAHILA P.S.,
      BELAGAVI.

2.    SMT ANITA W/O MANOHAR TALAWAR
      AGE. 46 YEARS,
      OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
      R/O. PLOT NO.593,
      BLOCK NO.4, SECTOR NO.5,
      SHRINAGAR, BELAGAVI.
                                           ..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(SRI.SANTOSH B RAWOOT, ADV., FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)


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

SEEKING TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN MAHILA P.S.

CRIME NO.58/2017 (C.C.NO.149/2018) PENDING ON THE FILE

OF II JMFC, BELAGAVI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S

498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC, AND U/S 3

AND 4 OF THE D.P. ACT, MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED.


      THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  4




                            ORDER

Since these petitions arise out of a common

proceeding in C.C.No.149/2018 they are taken up together

and disposed by this common order.

2. Heard Sri Harshawardhan M.Patil, learned counsel

appearing for petitioners and Sri Ramesh Chigari, learned

HCGP for respondent No.1-State and Sri. Santosh B

Rawoot, learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.

Crl.P.No.101439/2021:

3. The petitioners in this petition call in question

proceedings in C.C.No.149/2018 registered for offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 420, 504 and 506 of

the IPC.

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition as

borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

The complainant is the wife of accused No.1 who is

not before the Court. Marriage between the accused No.1

and the complainant takes place on 19.04.2017. Various

allegations are made by the complainant right from the

date of her marriage. The allegations against the husband-

accused No.1 were meeting out torture both physical and

mental. It transpires that the complainant moves away

from the matrimonial house and begins to stay in the

house of the parents and accuses the petitioners herein

who are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the

complainant of bringing her back to their house and again

harassment being meted out to her. On this score, a

complaint is registered before the jurisdictional police for

the aforesaid offences on 15.09.2017. The police, after

investigation, filed a chargesheet against the petitioners

and other accused in the crime. It is at that juncture the

petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court.

Crl.P.No.101667/2021:

5. The subject criminal petition also arises out of the

very same crime registered by the complainant as

obtaining in Crl.P.No.101439/2021. The petitioners are

accused No.4, 5 and 6 who are the sister-in-law, sister-in-

law's husband and a broker who had negotiated the

marriage between accused No.1-husband and the

complainant-wife.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would vehemently argue and contend that petitioners in

Crl.P.No.101439/2021 are the father-in-law and the

mother-in-law of the complainant and petitioners in

Crl.P.No.101667/2021 are sister-in-law of the complainant

and her husband and a broker who has allegedly

negotiated the marriage between the couple. There is no

allegation made in the entire complaint either against

father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and her husband

or any other stranger. The complaint is only against the

torture meted out both physical and mental by the

husband. The other members of the family are simply

dragged into these proceedings.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts with regard to the

marriage of accused No.1-husband with the complainant is

not in dispute. Other facts leading to the registration of

the complaint are narrated hereinabove and need not be

reiterated. Since the entire issue springs from the

complaint, the complaint is required to be noticed and is

extracted for the purpose of quick reference:

"F PɼU À É ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÀ £Á£ÀÄ C¤vÁ vÀAzÉ zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzÀ ±ÉmÉÖtª Ú g À ,À ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸Àz° À è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ CvÉÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ £À£U À É PÉÆlÖ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ §UÉÎ F PɼV À £ÀAvÉ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ zÁR® ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §AiÀĸÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

£À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ²æà ªÀÄ£ÉÆúÀgÀ vÀAzÉ. F±ÀégÀ vÀ¼ª À ÁgÀ EªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.04.2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¹A¢ü ¸ÁA¸ÀÌøw ¨sª À £ À À ¹AzsÀÄ £ÀUg À ,À »AqÀ®UÁ UÀt¥Àw UÀÄr ºÀwÛgÀ £Égª À ÃÉ jvÀÄÛ.

F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ F±ÀégÀ ©üêÀÄ¥Áà vÀ¼ª À ÁgÀ CªÀgÀ ¥Àwß PÀªÀÄ®ªÁé £À£Àß ¥Àw ªÀÄ£ÉÆúÀgÀ (¥À¨ æ sÁPÀgÀ

ªÀiÁ¼ÀUÉ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£À ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ VÃvÁ PÀ¯ÉÆèüÀPg À À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ¼À ¥Àw ±ÀAPÀgÀ PÀ¯ÉÆèüÀPg À À EªÀg® É ègÀÆ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß M¦àPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ zÀAiÀiÁ£ÀAzÀ ±ÉmÉÖtª Ú g À À vÁ¬Ä gÉÃtÄPÁ CtÚ «dAiÀÄ E®ègÀÆ PÀÆr DzÀ±ð À PÁ®¤AiÀÄ°è EzÀÝ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£À ªÀÄ£É £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃV §AzɪÀÅ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄ®è¥Áà zÉÆqÀªÀĤ ¸Á: ºÁgÉÆèɼª À r À «±Àé£ÁxÀ ¥ÁltPÀgÀ CªÀgÀ ¥Àwß EAzÀĪÀÄw ¥ÁltPÀgÀ EªÀgÀÆ eÉÆvÉVzÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¤²ÑvÁxÀðzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07.02.2017gÀAzÀÄ ±ÀAPÀgÀ PÀ¯ÉÆèîPÀgÀ rJ¥sïM CªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÁå¢æ £ÀUg À z À ° À è EzÀÝ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀg¬ É Ä¹zÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvA É iÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀ ªÀÄ£É ±ÀAPÀgÀ PÀ¯ÉÆèüÀPg À À EªÀgÀÄ F±ÀégÀ vÀ¼ª À ÁgÀ EªÀgÀ ªÀiÁªÀ EgÀÄvÁÛg.É ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ CvÉÛ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ VÃvÁ PÀ¯ÉÆèüÀPg À À VÃvÁgÀªg À À ¥Àw ±ÀAPÀgÀ PÀ¯ÉÆèüÀPg À À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥À¨ æ sÁPÀgÀ ªÀiÁ¼ÀUÉ (£À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£À ¸ÀA§A¢üP)À ªÀÄ®è¥Áà zÉÆqÀªÀĤ EªÀgÀÄ ºÁdgÀ EzÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀÄÄVzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉÆqÀÄvÀPÉƼÀÄîªÀ §AUÁgÀ, §mÉÖ, PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ HlzÀ Rað£À §UÉÎ AiÀiÁ¢ ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. F AiÀiÁ¢UÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥À¨ æ sÁPÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÀAPÀgÀ PÀ¯ÉÆèüÀPg À À EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ¸À» EgÀÄvÀÛª.É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤²ÑvÁxÀðUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:

18.04.2017 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 19.04.2017gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¤zsð À j¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

CzÀgA À vÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18.04.2017 gÀ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® ¹A¢ü ¨sª À £ À z À ° À è ¨sµ À ÀÖV (¤²ÑvÁxÀð) PÁAiÀÄðPÀª æ ÀÄ £Égª À ÃÉ j¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ªÀÄgÀÄ¢£À CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.04.2017 gÀAzÀÄ «ªÁºÀª£ À ÀÄß

dgÀÄV¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ PÁ®PÉÌ ±ÀAPÀgÀ PÉ. PÀ¯ÉÆèüÀPg À À EªÀgÃÉ ¸Àé ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgz À ° À è §gÉzÀÄ AiÀiÁ¢ vÀAiÀiÁj¹ J®ègÀÆ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀAvÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛg.É ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀÄAl¥À¢AzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ, ªÀiÁªÀ, UÀAqÀ J®ègÀÆ PÀÆr vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À®Ä £ÀªÀÄä PÀq¬ É ÄAzÀ ²æêÀÄw ±ÉʯÁ QgÀt ¥ÁltPÀgÀ EªÀgÀÄ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ.

£ÀAvÀgÀ ºÉÆÃzÀ ¢£ÀªÃÉ £À£Àß CvÉÛ PÀªÀįÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ VÃvÁ £Á£ÀÄ vÉÆlÖ ªÀÄAUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆvÀª æ ª À £ À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆqÀÄ CAvÁ ¦Ãr¹zÀgÀÄ, CA¢¤AzÀ ¢£Á®Ä £À£Àß CvÉÛ £À£U À É ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV HlPÀÄÌ PÉÆqÀ°®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ PÉÆlÖ §AUÁgÀzÀ GAUÀÄgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉÆÃR PÉÆlÖ gÀÆ.75,000/- UÀ¼ÀÄ J£ÀÆ ¸Á®ÄªÀ¢®è ¤£Àß vÀAzÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß EnÖzÁÝgÉ CzÀg° À è gÀÆ.5,00,000/-

(gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä LzÀÄ ®PÀë) UÀ¼£
                       À ÀÄß                     vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆlÖgÉ E°è ¤Ã£ÀÄ
§zÀÄPÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ E®èªÁzÀgÉ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß                ªÀģɬÄAzÀ zÀ©â          ºÉÆgÀUÉ
ºÁPÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÁ £À£Àß             CvÉÛ PÀªÀįÁ ¦Ãr¸ÀĪÀz®
                                                         À èzÉ             CªÁZÀå
±À§ÝU½
     À AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸À® £À£Àß                     PÀ¥Á½UÉ ºÉÆqÉzg
                                                                             À ÀÄ
£À£Àß   ªÀiÁªÀ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ      UÀAqÀ PÀÆqÀ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ        CvÉÛ     ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÉüÀ¢zÀÝgÉ
¤£ÀUÉ G½UÁ®«®è CAvÁ ºÉzj

À ¸À®Ä ±ÀÄgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÀÆqÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ PÁ°¤AzÀ MzÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ¯ÃÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ CAvÁ £Á£ÀÄ C°è ºÉÆÃzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. AiÀiÁPÉAzÀg,É £À£Àß UÀAqÀ qÉ« æ íAUÀ ¸ÀÆÌ® £Àq¸ É ÀÄvÁÛgÉ G¥ÀfêÀ£PÀ ÉÌ K£ÀÄ vÉÆAzÀgÉ E®è CAvÁ ºÉý £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀvÀÛ®°è ElÄÖ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉý ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ M¦à¹zÀÝgÀÄ.

F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£À C½AiÀÄ ±ÀAPÀgÀ PÀ¯ÉÆèüÀPg À À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥À¨ æ sÁPÀgÀ ªÀiÁ¼ÀUÉ ºÁUÀÆ E¤ßvÀgg À ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ K£ÀÆ PÉ®¸À E¯Áè CAvÁ ºÉüÀzÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀĪÀzPÀ ÉÌ EªÀgÀÆ ±Á«Äî DVzÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ UÀAqÀ£µ À ÉÖà C¥ÀgÁzsÀ J¸ÀVzÁÝg.É F ªÀÄzsÀå £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.04.2017PÉÌ vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV ¢£ÁAPÀ 28.04.2017 ªÀgU

É É C°èAiÉÄà EzÉÝãÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 28.04.2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ £À£U À É CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ UÀAqÀ EªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝ §UÉÎ ºÉýzÉÝãÉ. DzÀgÉ ºÉƸÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ CAvÁ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä ºÉýzÀÝPÉÌ CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. CzÉà ¢£À CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 28.04.2017jAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 07.05.2017gÀ ªÀgU É É £À£U À É CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀAqÀ §ºÀ¼ÃÉ CAzÀgÉ vÁ¼À¯ÁgÀzµ À ÀÄÖ QgÀÄPÀļÀ PÉÆqÀºw À Û zg À ÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ gÀÆ.5,00,000/-

(gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä LzÀÄ ®PÀë) UÀ¼£
                       À ÀÄß vÀªg
                                À ÀÄ                   ªÀģɬÄAzÀ vÀgz
                                                                     À ÃÉ EzÀÝ°è

¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¹ ©qÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÁ CAf¸Àºw À ÛzÀÝgÀÄ. PÉÆ£ÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ F §UÉÎ ¥ÉÆãÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ w½¸ÀÄvÀ¯ Û ÃÉ EzÉÝ «¥ÀjÃvÀ vÁæ¸À DV £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 07.05.2017 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É vÀAzÉUÉ ¥ÉÆãÀ ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ PÉüÀ°PÉÌ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÀÆ gÀÆ.5,00,000/-(gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä LzÀÄ ®PÀë) UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ PÀ½¹j E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV CAvÁ d§gÀz¹ À Û ªÀiÁr £À£ÀߣÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀUÉ

zÀ©â ¨ÁV®Ä ªÀÄÄaÑPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄAUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆvÀæ PÀ¹zÀÄ PÉƼÀî®Ä ¥ÀA æ iÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ C¼ÀÄvÁÛ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ gÀ« PɼU À q À É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÀÆß £Á¯ÉÌöÊzÀÄ d£À £ÉÆÃrzÁÝg.É F ªÀÄzsÀå £ÁªÀÅ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár ¸Àj ºÉÆÃUÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄä¤zÉÝêÀÅ DzÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¥Àw æ QæAiÉÄ ¨ÁgÀzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ EªÀvÀÄÛ vÀªÀÄä ºÀÄdÆjUÉ F ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ zÀAiÀĪÀiÁr £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ F±ÀégÀ vÀ¼ª À ÁgÀ, CvÉÛ PÀªÀįÁ UÀAqÀ ªÀÄ£ÉÆúÀgÀ @ ¥À± æ ÁAvÀ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ PÀª æ ÀÄdgÀÄV¸À¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¤gÀzÉÆåÃV CAvÁ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉý ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr¹zÀÝPÉÌ ±ÀAPÀgÀ PÀ¯ÉÆèüÀPg À ,À ¥À¨ æ sÁPÀgÀ ªÀiÁ¼ÀUÉ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ®Æ PÀª æ ÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ «£ÀAw.

ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÁUÀ §gÉzÀ AiÀiÁ¢, £À£Àß vÀAzÉ Rjâ ªÀiÁr CªÀjUÉ PÉÆlÖ §AUÁgÀzÀ gÀ¹Ã¢UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ®UÀwÛ¹zÉÝãÉ. ºÁUÀÆ £À«ÄäAzÀ gÉÆÃR ºÀt gÀÆ.75,000/- UÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ ¥Àqz É À §UÉÎ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖ °TvÀ gÀ¹Ã¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÉÝãÉ.

     DzÀÝjAzÀ DzÀµÀÄÖ        ¨ÉÃUÀ EªÀg®
                                       É ègÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉøÀÄ zÁR°¹ £À£U
                                                                    À É

£ÁåAiÀÄ MzÀV¸À¨ÃÉ PÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆlÖ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢.

ªÀÄÆ® ¥Àw æ UÀ¼ÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ°è ºÁdgÀ¥r À ¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ."

A perusal at the complaint clearly indicates that the entire

allegations are against the husband and stray sentences of

demand of dowry are made against the mother-in-law.

There is no overt act alleged for driving home the

ingredients of offences under Section 498A or 323 of the

IPC. Against the husband there are various instances of

torture narrated in the complaint. The petitioners, who are

the father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and her

husband and the broker are without any reasons dragged

into these proceedings.

9. The police after investigation and recording of

statements has also filed a charge sheet before the

competent Court. Summary of the charge sheet reads as

follows:

"EzÀg° À èAiÀÄ ¦gÁå¢UÉ EzÀg° À èAiÀÄ DgÉÆæ £ÀA.1 EªÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 19.04.2017 gÀAzÀÄ ¹A¢ü ¸ÁA¸ÀÌøw ¨sª À £ À À ¹AzsÀÄ £ÀUg À À »AqÀ®UÁ UÀt¥Àw UÀÄr ºÀwÛgÀ £Égª À ÃÉ jzÀÄÝ vÀªÀÄä PÉÆÃlð ¸ÀܼÀ ¹ÃªÉÄà ºÀ¢ÝAiÀÄ ¥ÉÊQ ¨É¼U À Á«AiÀÄ DzÀ±ð À PÁ®¤ «±ÉéñÀégA À iÀiÁå £ÀUg À À ¥Áèl £ÀA.23 £ÉÃzÀÝgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¦üÃgÁå¢AiÀÄÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁÝUÀ PÁ®A £ÀA.12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ DgÉÆæ C£ÀA1 jAzÀ 06 d£ÀgÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ UÀAqÀ. jAzÀ 05 d£ÀgÀÄ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄ ªÀiÁªÀ, CvÉÛ, £ÁzÀ¤ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁzÀ¤AiÀÄ UÀAqÀ¤zÀÄÝ,

DgÉÆæ £ÀA-06 EªÀgÀÄ ¦ügÁå¢ UÀAqÀ£À ¸ÀA§A¢üPj À zÀÄÝ, ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DV ºÉÆÃzÀ ¢£ÀªÃÉ DgÉÆæ £ÀA-03 EªÀgÀÄ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄÄ vÉÆlÖ ªÀÄAUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆvÀª æ £ À ÀÄß vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CAvÁ ¦r¹ CA¢¤AzÀ ¢£Á®Ä ¦ügÁå¢UÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV HlPÀÄÌ PÉÆqÀzÉ ¦üÃgÁå¢ vÀAzÉ PÉÆlÖ §AUÁgÀzÀ GAUÀÄgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÉÆÃR PÉÆlÖ gÀÆ.75,000/- UÀ¼ÀÄ KtÄ ¸Á®ÄªÀÅ¢®è ¤£Àß vÀAzÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß EnÖzÁÝgÉ CzÀg° À è gÀÆ.5,00,000/- LzÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆlæ E°è ¤Ã£ÀÄ §zÀÄPÀÄwÛAiÀiÁ E®èªÁzÀgÉ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ zÀ©â ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁPÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÁ ºÉüÀĪÀz® À èzÉ ¨ÉÆøÀr gÀAqÉ CAvÁ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝU½ À AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀ ¸À® PÀ¥Á½UÉ ºÉÆqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, DgÉÆæ £ÀA-01 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 02 EªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ £ÀA-03 EªÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÉüÀ¢zÀÝgÉ ¤£ÀUÉ G½UÁ®«®è CAvÁ ºÉzj À ¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀz® À è zÉ DgÉÆæ £ÀA-01 EªÀ£ÀÄ ¦üÃgÁå¢UÉ PÉʬÄAzÀ §rAiÀÄĪÀzÀÄ PÁ°¤AzÀ MzÉAiÀÄĪÀzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ. DgÉÆæ £ÀA-04 jAzÀ 06 d£ÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæü £ÀA-01 EªÀ£ÀÄ qÉ« æ íAUÀ ¸ÀÆÌ® £Àq¸ É ÀÄvÁÛ£É CAvÁ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉý ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀz® À è zÉ DgÉÆæ £ÀA-01 jAzÀ 05 d£ÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ¦ÃügÁå¢üUÉ 5,00,000/- UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ vÀgz À É EzÀÝ°è ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¹ ©qÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÁ ¥Àw æ ¢£À fêÀzsÀ zsª À ÀÄQ ºÁQzÀÝ®èzÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 07/05/2017 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁ£É ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ £ÀA-04 EªÀgÀÄ ¦ügÁå¢ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀg® É ègÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ £ÀA-04 EªÀg£ À ÀÄß gÀÆ. 5,00,000/- UÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ PÀ½¹j E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß PÀgz É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV CAvÁ

§r ºÉÆr ªÀiÁr d§gÀz¹ À Û ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ PÀ®A:498(J), 323,420,504,506 ¸ÀºÀ PÀ®A-34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 r¦ PÁAiÉÄÝ."

Here again, the instances of torture is against the husband-

accused No.1. The stream that runs through the complaint

insofar as other accused is that other accused have

cheated the complainant. The instance of cheating is on the

score that the complainant was made to believe that the

husband-accused No.1 runs a driving school and it is the

case of the complainant that he does own a driving school

and she was cheated in marriage. This is the stand of the

complainant both in the complaint and in the statement

recorded by the police during investigation.

10. It is germane to notice the fact that the petitioner

has instituted proceedings against the husband seeking

maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and has

stated on oath in the petition which reads as follows:

"8. I have not having any source of income to maintain myself and now I am residing with my old age father, therefore the respondent No.1 is liable to

pay maintenance to me as the respondent No.1 has failed to maintain and neglected me without any reason nor has paid medical expenses till today, nor performed any marital obligations towards and thereby respondents has failed to fulfill the obligation and duties of married life therefore I have lost all hopes and have suffered mentally physically because of harassment of all respondents.

9. I further submitted that the respondent No.1 is maintaining the driving school and also having agricultural land of 3 Acre, in all the respondent No.1 is having income of Rs.50,000/- Monthly from driving school and also earn Rs.5,00,000/- p.a., from agricultural land and the respondent No.1 is physically well in doing any other work and thereby he is capable to pay maintenance to me and also he is capable to provide separate accommodation as per his status.

Therefore the respondent No.1 may kindly be directed to pay interim maintenance of Rs.20,000/- p.m. till disposal of this petition in the interest of justice."

In terms of what is quoted hereinabove, the complainant-

wife while seeking maintenance contends that the husband

is maintaining a driving school and has agricultural land of

3 acres and is having a monthly income of Rs.50,000/-

from the driving school and also earns Rs.5,00,000/- from

agricultural lands.

11. Two facts spring from the said averment. One is,

the fact that the husband does not own a driving school

loses its legs to stand and the other being, husband having

monthly income to the aforesaid extent would touch upon

the demand of dowry. Therefore, in the light of the case of

the wife being that he does own a driving school and earns

about Rs.50,000/-, the allegations of hoodwinking the

complainant for marriage cannot hold water and other

members of the family for this purpose cannot be dragged

into the proceedings. The Apex Court in its latest judgment

rendered in the case of Shafiya Khan alias Shakuntala

Prajapati, reported in 2022 SCC onLine SC 167, has

held as follows:

"11. Counsel further submits that there is no iota of evidence to support what is alleged in the complaint by respondent no.2 on the basis of which FIR has been registered and even if what is being stated in the FIR is taken on its face value, prima facie, none of

the offences which have been levelled against the appellant in the charge-sheet are made out.

In the given circumstances, if the criminal proceedings at this stage are allowed to continue against her, it will be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law and a mental harassment to the appellant, more so, when she has not only to sustain her employment, but being the only bread winner of her family, she has to take care of her minor son also and further submits that the High Court has not even looked into the prima facie allegations levelled in the FIR on the basis of which charge-sheet came to be filed and just after quoting certain passages from the judgments of this Court, dismissed the petition preferred at her instance under Section 482 Cr.PC.

12. Counsel submits that the principles have been well laid down by this Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and which have been consistently followed in the later years and taking the test as laid down by this Court, what being alleged in the complaint on the basis of which FIR has been registered, even if prima facie taken into consideration, no offence is made out of the kind levelled against her. In the given circumstances, the present proceedings initiated against the appellant deserve to be quashed and set aside being an abuse of the process of law.

13. Counsel for the State and the counsel for the complainant jointly submit that after the FIR was registered, investigation was made and only thereafter the charge-sheet was filed. It can at least be presumed that a prima facie case against her is made out. The High Court has appreciated the material available on record and found no reason to interfere in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC and the impugned judgment needs no further interference of this Court.

14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

15. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.PC are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (supra) as under:

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence

collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

16. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918.

17. It is no doubt true that the power of quashing of criminal proceedings should be exercised very

sparingly and with circumspection and that too in rarest of the rare cases and it was not justified for the Court in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the inherent powers do not confer any arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims and fancies.

18. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, there was no material placed on record by the complainant to justify the bald allegations which were made in the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered. There are undisputed facts on record that the appellant's marriage was solemnized with late Mohd. Shameem Khan on 11th December, 2016 and from this wed-lock, a male child was born on 23rd September, 2017 and her husband untimely passed away on 8th December, 2017 and until their period of matrimonial relationship, no complaint of any kind was ever made by her late husband (Mohd. Shameem Khan) and after she was paid his terminal benefits and got a compassionate appointment in his place as an A.N.M. by an order dated 19th May, 2018 w.e.f. 28th April, 2018, all sort of issues were raised by the complainant (brother of her deceased husband) of making such false allegations with reference to her marriage and also for the terminal benefits which she received and there was not even prima facie foundation to support the nature of allegations which were made.

19. Although it is true that it was not open for the Court to embark upon any enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR, but at least there has to be some factual supporting material for what has been alleged in the FIR which is completely missing in the present case and documentary evidence on record clearly supports that her Nikah Nama was duly registered and issued by competent authority and even the charge sheet filed against her does not prima facie discloses how the marriage certificate was forged.

20. In the given circumstances and going through the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered and other material placed on record, we are of the considered view that no offence of any kind as has been alleged in the FIR, has been made out against the appellant and if we allow the criminal proceedings to continue, it will be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law and will be a mental trauma to the appellant which has been completely overlooked by the High Court while dismissing the petition filed at her instance under Section 482 Cr.PC."

In the light of the facts obtaining in the cases at hand and

the judgment of the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to

allow these criminal petitions and obliterate further

proceedings against the petitioners.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Both the Criminal Petitions are allowed.

(ii) Impugned proceedings pending in

C.C.No.149/2018 on the file of II JMFC,

Belagavi stand quashed qua the

petitioners.

(iii) It is made clear that the trial Court shall

not be influenced or bound by the

observations made in the course of this

order in further proceedings against the

husband-accused No.1.

SD JUDGE CKK