Karnataka High Court

Jagadish S/O. Mallappa Bulla vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                            BEFORE
           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102463/2019

BETWEEN:

1.   JAGADISH S/O. MALLAPPA BULLA,
     AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: PRIMARY
     SCHOOL TEACHER,
     R/O: SALA STREET, WARD NO.4,
     NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE,
     GULEDAGUDDA-587 203,
     TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

2.   GOPAL S/O. MALLAPPA BULLA,
     AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: WEAVER,
     R/O: NADUVIN PETH, WARD NO.4,
     NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE,
     GULEDAGUDDA-587 203,
     TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

3.   SMT. SHANKRAVVA W/O MALLAPPA BULLA,
     AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: SALA STREET, WARD NO.4,
     NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE,
     GULEDAGUDDA-587 203,
     TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

4.   SMT. NAGARATNA W/O. GOPAL BULLA,
     AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O: SALA STREET, WARD NO.4,
     NEAR GANAPATI TEMPLE,
     GULEDAGUDDA-587 203,
     TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

5.   SMT. BHARATI W/O. SANKAPPA GORABAL,
     AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                                2




       R/O: NINGAPUR PETH,
       RAMADURGA-591 123,
       TQ: RAMADURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI.

6.     SANKAPPA S/O. AYYAPPA GORABAL,
       AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER,
       R/O: NINGAPUR PETH,
       RAMADURGA-591 123,
       TQ: RAMADURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI.

7.     SMT. LALITA W/O. MARUTI KONNUR,
       AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O: WARD NO.3, HOSAPETH STREET,
       KERUR-587 206, TQ: BADAMI,
       DIST: BAGALKOTE.

8.     MARUTI S/O MAGUNDAPPA KONNUR,
       AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
       R/O: WARD NO.3, HOSAPETH STREET,
       KERUR-587 206, TQ: BADAMI,
       DIST: BAGALKOTE.
                                                  ...PETITIONERS.
(BY SHRI PRASHANT S KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE.)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     DHARWAD BENCH
     (BY GULEDAGUDDA P.S.)

2.   MANJULA W/O. JAGADISH BULLA,
     AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
     WORK,
     R/O: SAL ONI, NEAR GANAPATHI
     TEMPLE, GULEDAGUDDA-587 203,
     TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP, FOR R.1;
SHRI H.M.DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE, FOR R.2.)
                                     3




      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC COURT, ITINERATE COURT AT
GULEDAGUDDA IN C.C.NO.13/2019 (CRIME NO.93/2017 REGISTERED
IN GULEDAGUDDA P.S.) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 143, 147, 323, 498A, 504, 506, 149 OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE, 1860, AND SECTION 3 & 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION
ACT, 1961, ETC.,.

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


                              ORDER

The petitioners herein call in question the proceedings in

C.C.No.13/2019 arising out of the Crime No.93/2017, registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 498A,

504, 506, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1869 and Section 3 & 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, pending on the file of Addl.

Civil Judge and JMFC, Itinerate Court at Guledagudda.

2. Before embarking upon the consideration on the

merit of the matter, I deem it appropriate to notice the

relationship of the parties to the lis. The 2nd respondent is the

complainant/wife of the 1st petitioner/accused no.1. The

petitioner no.2/accused no.2 is the brother-in-law, petitioner

no.3/accused no.3 is the mother-in-law, petitioner no.4/accused

no.4 is the brother-in-law's wife, petitioner no.5/accused no.5 is

the sister-in-law, petitioner no.6/accused no.6 is the husband of

accused no.5, petitioner no.7/accused no.7 is the sister-in-law,

petitioner no.8/accused no.8 is the husband of accused no.7.

This is the relationship between the parties to the lis. What

drives the petitioners to this Court is a complaint being

registered by the 2nd respondent/wife alleging the aforesaid

offences against all the petitioners herein.

3. The aforesaid offences are alleged in the backdrop

of the relationship between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd

respondent/wife turning sore. It transpires that the 1st petitioner

and the respondent wife get married on 11.5.2015 and on their

relationship turning sore, the 2nd respondent/wife registers a

complaint. Since the entire issue in the case springs from the

complaint, the same is extracted for the purpose of quick

reference.

£Á£ÀÄ ²æÃªÀÄw. ªÀÄAdÄ¼Á UÀAqÀ dUÀ¢Ã±À §Ä¼Áî, ªÀAiÀiÁ: 32 ªÀµðÀ , eÁw: »AzÀÆ zÉÃªÁAUÀ, GzÉÆåÃUÀ: ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ®¸À, ¸Á: UÀÄ¼ÉÃzÀ UÀÄqÀØ, ¸Á® NtÂ UÀt¥Àw UÀÄr ºÀwÛg,À §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀÄªÀ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ü ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28-11-2017

£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ°£À «¼Á¸Àz° À è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, dUÀ¢Ã±À vÀAzÉ ªÀÄ®è¥Àà §Ä¼Áî, ªÀAiÀiÁ: 37 ªÀµð À , £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CtÚ£ÁzÀ UÉÆÃ¥Á® vÀAzÉ ªÀÄ®è¥Àà §Ä¼Áî, ªÀAiÀiÁ: 45 ªÀµð À , CvÉÛAiÀiÁzÀ ±ÀAPÀæªÀé UÀAqÀ ªÀÄ®è¥Àà §Ä¼Áî, ªÀAiÀiÁ: 55 ªÀµðÀ , £ÉU¤ É ß £ÁUÀgv À Áß UÀAqÀ UÉÆÃ¥Á® §Ä¼Áî, ªÀAiÀiÁ: 40 ªÀµð À F ¥ÀPæ ÁgÀ PÀÆr EgÀÄvÀÛz.É £À£Àß vÀªgÀ ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ¨É¼U À Á« f¯ÉèAiÀÄ gÁªÀÄzÀÄUÀð ¥ÀlÖt EgÀvÀÛz.É £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ¨ÁzÁ«Ä vÁ®ÆQ£À ¤ÃgÀ®PÉÃj UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀgÀPÁj »jAiÀÄ ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ PÀ£ÀßqÀ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ²PÀëPg À ÀÄ CAvÁ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛg.É

£À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ dUÀ¢Ã±À ªÀÄ®è¥Àà §Ä¼Áî EªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11-05-2015 gÀAzÀÄ UÀÄ¼ÉÃzÀUÀÄqÀØ ºÁUÀÆ gÁªÀÄzÀÄUÀð »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è ¥Àg¸À ÀàgÀ M¦àUÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ UÀÄ¼ÉÃzÀUÀÄqÀØ ¥ÀlÖtzÀ°è DVgÀÄvÀÛz.É £À£Àß vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ PÁ®PÉÌ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 2 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä QªÀÄäwÛ£À ¨ÁAqÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 35 UÁæA vÀÆPÀzÀ §AUÁgÀzÀ D¨sg À t À UÀ¼£À ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 10,000/- gÉÆÃR ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛz.É £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¸Àé®à ¢£ÀU¼ À À PÁ® £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ ZÉ£ÁßV EzÉÝªÀÅ. £ÀAvÀgÀ, ¥Àæw¢£À gÁwæ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¥ÉÆÃ¤£À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆÃ ºÉAUÀ¹£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, ªÉÄ¸Éeï ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ ¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀ ºÉAUÀ¹£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¥ÉÆÃ¤£À°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, ªÉÄÃ¸Éeï ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃj CAvÁ PÉÃ½zÁUÀ¯® É è D «µÀAiÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁPÉ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÁ dUÀ¼À vÉUz É ÀÄ ºÉÆr §r ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÁzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ 1) dUÀ¢Ã±À 2) £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CtÚ UÉÆÃ¥Á®, 3) CvÉÛ ±ÀAPÀæªÀé, 4) £ÉU¤ É ß £ÁUÀgv À Áß EªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉUÉ «£ÁPÁgÀt dUÀ¼Á vÉUz É ÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè CAvÁ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ºÉÃ½ ºÉÆr §r ªÀiÁr zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. C®èzÃÉ £À£Àß 5) £Á¢¤ ¨sÁgÀw UÀAqÀ ¸ÀAPÀ¥Àà UÉÆÃgÀ¨Á¼À ¸Á: gÁªÀÄzÀÄUÀð, CªÀ¼À UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ 6) ¸ÀAPÀ¥Àà UÉÆÃgÀ¨Á¼À ¸Á: gÁªÀÄzÀÄUÀð, 7) £Á¢¤ ®°vÁ UÀAqÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄw PÉÆtÆÚgÀ ¸Á: PÉgÀÆgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ¼À UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ 8) ªÀiÁgÀÄw PÉÆtÆÚg,À ¸Á: PÉgÀÆgÀ EªÀgÀÄ DUÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ £À£Àß §UÉÎ E®è ¸À®èzÀ ZÁr ºÉÃ½ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ §r¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj £À£U À É ¤£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÄÝ ªÀåxÀðªÁVzÉ. ¤¤ßAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä dUÀ¢Ã±À£À £ÉªÄÀ ä¢ ºÁ¼ÁVzÉ CAvÁ «£ÁPÁgÀt £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹mÁÖV ºÉÆr §r ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.

C®èzÃÉ J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ PÀrªÉÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÉ CzÀÄ ¸Á®ÄªÀÅ¢®è E£ÀÆß 5 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ, 1 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á E®è¢zÀÝgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ CAvÁ £À£UÀ É QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä vÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ d£ÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ UÀÄ¼ÉÃzÀUÀÄqÀØzÀ »jAiÀÄgÁzÀ ¨Á§Ä zÀrØ, ªÀÄÄPÀÄAzÀ¥Àà zÉÆqÀªÀÄ¤, PÀÈµÀ¥ Ú Àà ºÀÄ¯Áå¼À ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgj À UÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ CªÀg® É ègÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ d£ÀjUÉ §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉÃ½zÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀÄÄAzÉ £Á£ÀÄ UÀ©ð ü tÂAiÀiÁzÁUÀ £À£U À É ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ G¥ÀZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr¸ÀzÃÉ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÉÆmÉÖAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄÃ ªÀÄUÀÄ wÃj ºÉÆÃ¬ÄvÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ zÉÊ»PÀ, ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀgz À QÀ ëuÉ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À PÉÆlÖgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀÄAVPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ CAvÁ CªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ fÃªÀ£À ¸ÁV¹zÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25-11-2017 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 03-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁjUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÁzÀ ¸Àzj À d£Àg® É ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj £À£ÀU,É ¤Ã£ÀÄ zÀjzÀæ ºÉAUÀ¸ÀÄ ¤£Àß PÁ®ÄÎt ¸Àj E®è £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀ¨ÃÉ qÀ gÉAr, ¨ÉÆÃ¸Àr CAvÁ ºÀ®Ìmï ¨ÉÊzÀÄ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉUÉ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ PÉÊ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆr§r ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ¤£Àß£ÀÄß R¯Á¸ï ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÁ fÃªÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ªÀÄ£É ©lÄÖ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛg.É PÁgÀt ªÉÄÃ¯É §gÉzÀ 8 d£ÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£ÀßzÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ü EgÀÄvÀÛz.É F §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ d£ÀjUÉ «ZÁj¹ §AzÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ü PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀqª À ÁVgÀÄvÀÛz.É EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ PÁ®PÉÌ vÉUÉ¬Ä¹zÀ ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆÃªÀ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛz.É

4. A cursory perusal at the complaint would

unmistakably indicate no allegation against all the other

members of the family except against the 1st accused husband.

The names of the other members of the family are narrated only

to make omnibus or vague statement that they have tortured

the complainant/wife either physically or mentally for demand of

dowry. The entire narration as stated hereinabove of allegation

is only against the 1st accused husband. Therefore, the trial if

permitted to continue against the other members of the family,

it would without doubt lead to miscarriage of justice and the

abuse of the process of the law. The view of mine in this regard

is fortified by the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case

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."

21. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant in reference to FIR No.0227 of 2019 dated 9th July 2019 under Sections 494, 495, 416, 420, 504 & 506 IPC lodged at PS Bazar Khala, District Lucknow, U.P. are hereby quashed and set aside.

22. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

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

as narrated hereinabove and the complaint and the charge

sheet does not alleging any overtact being performed by the

petitioners and the law laid down by the Apex Court as

afore-quoted, the proceedings against the other members of the

family required to be obliterated.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i) The criminal petition is allowed in part.

ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.13/2019, pending

on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC,