Vishwanath S/O. Dundappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3186 Kant

                             1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101887 OF 2021

BETWEEN:


1.   VISHWANATH
     S/O DUNDAPPA JANGANURE
     AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
     OCC.: NIL,
     R/O: "SRIDEVI", PLOT NO.892
     RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR
     2ND STAGE, BELAGAVI - 590 006.

2.   SMT.SAROJINI
     W/O VISHWANATH JANGANURE
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
     OCC.: RETD. FROM BANK
     R/O.: "SRIDEVI" PLOT NO.892
     RANI CHANNAMMA NAGAR
     2ND STAGE, BELAGAVI - 590 006.

3.   SMT.UMAMAHESHWARI
     W/O. AKSHAY KOLHE
     AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
     OCC.:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
     R/O. 4/7, SAHAKARI VASAT,
     ERANDWANE, PUNE
     KARVE ROAD, PUNE - 410 004
     MAHARASHTRA STATE.
                                2




4.     SHRI. AKSHAYA KOLHE
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
       OCC.:SERVICE,
       R/O. 4/7, SAHAKARI VASAT,
       ERANDWANE, PUNE, KARVE ROAD,
       PUNE - 410 004
       MAHARASHTRA STATE.

5.     SMT.NAGARATNA GANIGER
       W/O.VISHWANATH GANIGER
       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
       OCC.:LECTURER IN RLS COLLEGE,
       BELAGAVI, R/O. A4,
       RLS QUARTERS,
       BELAGAVI, DIST.: BELAGAVI.

6.     SHRI.VISHWANATH GANIGER
       AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
       OCC.: WORKING IN RLS COLLEGE,
       BELAGAVI, R/O. A4, RLS QUARTERS,
       BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI
                                          ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI T.M.NADAF, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY WOMEN POLICE STATION
       BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT
       REPRESENTED BY ITS
       THE ADDL. SPP
       HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
       HIGH COURT, DHARWAD.

2.     SMT.YASHASWINI
       W/O.NAGADEV JANGANURE
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
       OCC.: HOUSEHOLD,
       R/O.C/O. SUMITRA F.SANNAPPANAVAR
                                  3




     PLOT NO.1400
     SATTUR, DHARWAD - 09.
                                                 ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT AND
    SRI G.N.JOSHI, ADVOCATES FOR R2))


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN CC NO.221/2019
FROM THE OFFICE JMFC-II COURT, BELAGAVI, AND TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.31/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT OF WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI, AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.221/2019 ON THE
FILE OF JMFC-II, BELAGAVI SO FAR AS THESE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED.



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

                             ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court seeking quashment of

entire proceedings in Crime No.31 of 2018 and C.C.No.221 of

2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A,

323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of

the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).

2. Heard Sri.T.M.Nadaf, learned counsel appearing for

petitioners and Sri.Ramesh Chigari, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1,

Sri.Shriharsh.A.Neelopant and Sri.G.N.Joshi, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts as projected by the prosecution in brief are as

follows:

Before embarking upon consideration of the case I deem it

appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties to the

lis. The 2nd respondent is the complainant and wife of accused

No.1. The 1st and 2nd petitioners are the father-in-law and

mother-in-law of the 2nd respondent. Petitioners 3 and 4 are the

sisters-in-law and brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent.

Petitioners 5 and 6 are the maternal aunt and uncle of accused

No.1. The husband of the complainant viz., accused No.1 is not

before Court.

4. The marriage between the 2nd respondent and accused

No.1 takes place on 22-05-2013. It appears that the couple after

marriage began to reside at Pune. The relationship between the

2nd respondent and accused No.1 has irretrievably turned sore

which led to certain proceedings initiated against each other.

The proceedings initiated by the 2nd respondent /complainant

against accused No.1 are - one invoking Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance, second under the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 including the

petitioners and the third one under Section 9 of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1956 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The

present dispute involves proceedings initiated pursuant to

complaint registered on 20-06-2018 for offences punishable

under the provisions as afore-quoted. Pursuant to investigation

the Police have also filed a charge sheet in the case at hand and

the case is now registered as C.C.No.221 of 2019 before the

JMFC-II, Belagavi.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that the narration in the entire complaint nowhere

points out any offence against any of the petitioners. It is not in

dispute that the couple after marriage lived at Pune and the

mother-in-law and father-in-law, petitioners 1 and 2 lived at

Belagavi and Petitioners 5 and 6 also lived at Belagavi, but

separately. It is only petitioners 3 and 4 who stayed in Pune but

never with the couple. Therefore, he would submit that entire

allegations of the 2nd respondent are only against accused No.1

and other members of the family who are not even connected to

the affairs of the couple are dragged into the proceedings. There

are no allegations against any other member of the family who

are sisters-in-law and her husband who are not even connected

to the affairs of the couple. The petitioners are unnecessarily

dragged into the proceedings in a squabble between the 2nd

respondent and accused No.1.

6. It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent has initiated

various proceedings against accused No.1/husband and a few

against family members. Against accused No.1 the 2nd

respondent has filed proceedings under Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance. Second petition filed by the 2nd

respondent is invoking provisions of the Domestic Violence Act

against accused No.1, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister in-

law and the third petition initiated is complete contrary to what

is earlier initiated viz., seeking restitution of conjugal rights

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. During the

pendency of these proceedings, the complainant again registers

the subject complaint on 20.06.2018. Therefore, the 2nd

respondent has blown hot and cold on every occasion and

registered criminal proceedings against her husband and in-laws

and other members of the family.

7. Insofar as the husband/accused No.1 is concerned, the

complaint does narrate some incidents. Insofar as other

members of the family are concerned, there is nothing that can

be said to be touching upon the offences alleged. Therefore, the

present proceedings, if permitted to continue against the

petitioners, would be an abuse of the process of law. The view of

mine, in this regard, is fortified by the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND

OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS1 wherein it is held

as under:

"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 v. State of U.P. , 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)

2022 SCC Online SC 162

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 v. State of Bihar5, 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 v. State of Jharkhand, 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 v. State of UP7, 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 v. L.H.V. Prasad 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, 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 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 dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 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 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."

(Emphasis supplied) In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the

judgment rendered by the Apex Court (supra), further

proceedings against the petitioners cannot be permitted to

continue and if permitted, would result in miscarriage of justice.

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

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.221 of 2019 pending before the JMFC-II, Belagavi, stand quashed.

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of this order are only for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and they shall not influence or bind the proceedings against accused No.1 or other pending proceedings between the parties.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp CT:MJ