Karnataka High Court

Sri Nagesh R vs State By Chikkaballapura Women ... on 15 June, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                            1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.4268 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI NAGESH R.,
     S/O RAJAPPA
     AGED 33 YEARS.

2.   SMT.MANJULA
     W/O RAJAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.

     BOTH RESIDING AT NO.108
     SAPTAGIRI RESIDENCY
     4TH FLOOR, SBM ROAD
     UTTARAHALLI
     BENGALURU - 560 061.

3.   SMT. POORNIMA R.,
     W/O MUNIRAJU
     AGE 35 YEARS.

4.   SRI MUNIRAJU N.,
     S/O NAGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

     BOTH RESIDING AT NO.45
     4TH CROSS, KAMAKHYA LAYOUT
     BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE
     BENGALURU - 560 085.
                                             ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN S., ADVOCATE)
                                  2




AND:

1.      STATE BY CHIKKABALLAPURA
        WOMEN POLICE STATION
        REPRESENTED BY
        STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

2.      DEEPIKA A.N.,
                                                    ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI H.S.SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (VIDEO
    CONFERENCING))

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN
CR.NO.36/2020   REGISTERED     BY   THE  CHIKKABALLAPURA
WOMESN P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,506 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.CIVIL
JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND CJM COURT AT CHIKKABALLAPURA.

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

                                ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

proceeding in C.C.No.604/2021, pending before the Principal

Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and CJM Court, Chikkaballapura,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 506

r/w. 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, arising out of crime No.36/2020.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition

as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

Responding No.2 is the complainant - wife of petitioner

No.1 - accused No.1. Petitioner No.2 is the mother in-law,

petitioner No.3 is sister in-law and petitioner No.4 is the

husband of petitioner No.3. Marriage between petitioner No.1

and respondent No.2 - complainant takes place on 09.09.2019.

It transpires that the couple stayed together only for a month

and had differences among themselves, which led to registration

of several proceedings. A crime was registered by the

complainant in Crime No.36/2020 on 08.03.2020, alleging

offences punishable as afore-quoted, for the incidents that

happened on 09.09.2019 and 15.11.2019. Therefore, the

petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court seeking

quashment of the proceedings in the subject petition.

3. This Court by an order dated 10.09.2020, while granting

an interim order of stay, had stalled further proceedings as it

concerns petitioner Nos.2 to 4 - accused Nos.2 to 4 and directed

that the proceedings be continued against accused No.1. During

the pendency of the petition, the police have filed charge sheet

against the petitioners, which is called in question by

amendment to the prayer in the petition.

4. Heard Sri Praveen S., learned counsel for the

petitioners, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, Sri H.S.Santhosh,

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there

are no allegations that would touch upon the ingredients of

Section 498A or 506 of the IPC as is alleged against all the

petitioners. There were grievances and the complainant had

stayed only for a month after the marriage and she left the

house on 15.11.2019. He would submit that permitting further

proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of law.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 would refute the submissions, seek to justify

the registration of crime and product of investigation, the charge

sheet to contend that the allegations are made out against all

the accused and therefore, it is a matter of trial that the

petitioners have to come out clean.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe

the lines of learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the

parties and perused the material on record.

9. The afore-narrated facts with regard to the marriage

between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 - complainant is

not in dispute. What triggers the registration of the crime is the

complaint registered by the complainant, which reads as follows:

"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 22.04.2019 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄ £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀÅ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è ¤²ÑvÁxÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¤²ÑvÁxÀðzÀ ¢£ÀªÉÃ £ÁUÉÃ±ÀæªÀjUÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 10UÁæA vÀÆPÀzÀ a£ÀßzÀ GAUÀÄgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀÄwÛÃj, CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 5 UÁæA vÀÆPÀzÀ a£ÀßzÀ GAUÀÄgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¢. 08.09.2019 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 09.09.2019 gÀAzÀÄ aPÀÌ§¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀzÀ ºÀµÉÆÃðzÀAiÀÄ PÀ£ÉéµÀ£ï ºÁ¯ï£À° £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀÝAvÉ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ J¯Áè MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß £ÁUÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ, £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä, CPÀÌ CªÀgÀ ¨sÁªÀgÀªÀjUÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 35 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß RZÀÄðªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä £À£Àß£ÀÄß £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¢.15.09.2019 gÀAzÀÄ £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀgÀ PÀqÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ©ÃUÀgÀ OvÀtPÀÆlªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À §£À±ÀAPÀj 3£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀ, 14£ÉÃ CqÀØgÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ J¸ï.©.¥Ánð ºÁ¯ï £À°è £ÉgÀªÉÃj¹zÀÄÝ, D ¢£À £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 25 ¸Á«gÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß RZÀÄð ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ aPÀÌ§¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ¢AzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ PÉ.J¸ï.Dgï.n.¹ §¸ï ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁV £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀPÉÌ0zÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À GvÀÛgÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ J¸ï.©.JA. gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ¸À¥ÀÛVj gÉ¹qÉ¤ì ¹ 4£ÉÃ CAvÀ¹Û£À°è ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.108gÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 1 wAUÀ¼À PÁ® ªÁ¸À«zÀÄÝ, £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀgÀ CPÀÌ ¥ÀÆtÂðªÀiÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ ªÀÄÄ¤gÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀ ¥Àæw¢£À £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀÆtÂðªÀiÁgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀßAvÉ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ° JAzÀÄ w½¢zÉÝ, DzÀgÉ ¥ÀÆtÂðªÀiÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ ªÀÄÄ¤gÁdÄgÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄAdÄ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀjUÉ ZÁr ºÉÃ½PÉÆlÄÖ, £À¤ßAzÀ E£ÀÄß ºÉaÑ£À jÃwAiÀÄ°è ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À¹ìUÉ EzÀjAzÀ CWÁvÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ ºÀÄµÁj®èzÀAvÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÁUÀ° CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÁUÀ° £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ

ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À PÉÆ®A©AiÀiÁ KµÁå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EA¢gÁ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¨Ár PÉÃgÉ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è gÀÆ.50 ¸Á«gÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

£Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁV ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 1 wAUÀ¼À PÁ® £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ ¥Àæw ¢£À £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄAdÄ¼À, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CPÀÌ ¥ÀÆtÂðªÀiÁ, DPÉAiÀÄ UÀAqÀ ªÀÄÄ¤gÁdÄgÀªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ, vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ ºÀt ¸Á®zÀÄ E£ÀÆß ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV 10 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ EgÀÄªÀ agÁ¹Û ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÀgÁ¹ÛAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀUÉ §gÀÄªÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÉÃ½ E®èªÁzÀ°è £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¹ÃªÉÄ JuÉÚ ºÁQ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀÅzÁUÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ®PÀë ºÀt RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½¸ÀzÉ £À£Àß £ÉÆÃªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÉÃ C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝ. C®èzÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ £À£Àß EZÉÑUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¢.15.11.2019 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À vÁ¬Ä, DvÀ£À CPÀÌ, ¨sÁªÀ J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀ¯ÉÃ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄßö CªÁZÀå ±À§ÞUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ £ÀA. PÉ.J.05JA. JPïì 7704 ªÀiÁgÀÄw ¹é¥sïÖ PÁj£À°è £À£Àß£ÀÄßöPÀÄ½¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj¤AzÀ aPÀÌ§¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀPÉÌ CwªÉÃUÀªÁV CeÁUÀgÀÆPÀvÉ¬ÄAzÀ PÁgÀÄ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄßö ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ±ÀªÀ¤ßlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀÝ GqÀÄUÉÆgÉAiÀiÁV ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 35 UÁæA vÀÆPÀzÀ a£ÀßzÀ ¨Áæ¸ï ¯ÉÊmï, ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 40 UÁæA vÀÆPÀzÀ a£ÀßzÀ PÀÄwÛUÉ ZÉÊ£ï, ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 10 UÁæA vÀÆPÀzÀ a£ÀßzÀ GAUÀÄgÀzÀ a£ÀßzÀ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 900 UÁæA vÀÆPÀzÀ ¨É½î ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ

£À£Àß ¨É¯É ¨Á¼ÀÄªÀ gÉÃµÉä ¹ÃgÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß, EvÀgÉ ¢£À §¼ÀPÉAiÀÄ §mÉÖUÀ¼À£Éß®è CªÀgÀ §½AiÉÄ ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß M§â¼À£Éß ¨É½UÉÎ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 5.00 UÀAmÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛ£É. EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £ÁUÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÄavÁægÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀÄ CzÀPÉÌ M¦àgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. £ÁåAiÀiÁ ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ F ¢£À vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄAdÄ¼À, CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ ¥ÀÆtÂðªÀiÁ, CªÀgÀ ¨sÁªÀ ªÀÄÄ¤gÁdÄ gÀªÀgÀ PÀÄªÀÄäQÌ¤AzÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀÄ ¸À®ÄªÁV £À£ÀUÉ «¥ÀjÃvÀªÁV ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ, zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÉ®ègÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄPÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrzÀÝ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß, £À£Àß ¨É¯É ¨Á¼ÀÄªÀ gÉÃµÉä ¹ÃgÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EvÀgÉ ¢£À §¼ÀPÉAiÀÄ §mÉÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 900 UÁæA vÀÆPÀzÀ ¨É½î ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ÃrzÀÝ, £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt 10 ®PÀë ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀjUÉ §mÉÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ¤ÃrzÀÝ 75 ¸Á«gÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ Rað£À ºÀt gÀÆ. 35 ®PÀë AiÀÄtªÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆr¹PÉÆlÖ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ zÉÆgÀQ¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É."

The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet.

Column No.17 of the charge sheet reads as follows:

"17. PÉÃ¹£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ «ªÀgÀuÉ:

¢£ÁAPÀ: 09.09.2019 gÀAzÀÄ aPÀÌ§¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ºÀµÉÆÃðzÀAiÀÄ PÀ£ÉéµÀ£ï ¸ÉAlgï £À°è ¸ÁQë-1gÀªÀgÀjUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ F

zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ CAPÀt -12gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ DgÉÆÃ¦-1 £ÁUÉÃ±ï gÀªÀjUÀÆ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁAiÀÄðPÀæªÀÄ £ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆÃ¦-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV 35 UÁæA, vÀÆPÀzÀ a£ÀßzÀ ¨Áæ¸ï ¯ÉÊmï, 40 UÁæA vÀÆPÀzÀ a£ÀßzÀ PÀÄwÛUÉ ZÉÊ£ï, 10 UÁæA vÀÆPÀzÀ a£ÀßzÀ GAUÀÄgÀ, 5 ¸Á«gÀ ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÁZï, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ §mÉÖUÀ½UÉAzÀÄ £ÀUÀzÀÄ 75 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆ.UÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt ºÁUÀÆ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt 10 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆÃ¦-1gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë -1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁr¸ÀzÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦-1gÀªÀjUÉ DgÉÆÃ¦-1gÀªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä DgÉÆÃ¦-1 ²æÃªÀÄw ªÀÄAdÄ¼À, DgÉÆÃ¦-1gÀªÀgÀ CPÀÌ¼ÁzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦-3 ²æÃªÀÄw ¥ÀÆtÂðªÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆÃ¦ -1 gÀ ªÀiÁªÀ£ÁzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦-4 ªÀÄÄ¤gÁdÄ gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦-1gÀªÀjUÉ PÀÄªÀÄäPÀÄÌ ¤Ãr ¸ÁQë-1gÀªÀjUÉ DgÉÆÃ¦-1 gÀªÀgÀ PÀqÉ¬ÄAzÀ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸É PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÁÛ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ¸Á®zÉAzÀÄ E£ÀÆß ¸ÁQë-1gÀªÀgÀ vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉaÑUÉ 10 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-1gÀªÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ¹ÜgÁ¹Û ºÁUÀÆ ZÀgÁ¹ÜAiÀÄ°è ¥Á®Ä vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÉÃ½ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ 15.11.2019gÀAzÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦-1, DgÉÆÃ¦-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆÃ¦-3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆÃ¦-4 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÀgÀ¯ÉÃ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÞUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹ DgÉÆÃ¦-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQëÃ- 1gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß ¨Á§vÀÄÛ £ÀA.PÉ.J.05-JA.JPïì.7704gÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄw ¹é¥sïÖ PÁj£À°è PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ aPÀÌ§¼Áî¥ÀÄgÀzÀ ¸ÁQëÃ-1gÀªÀgÀ ªÀi£ÉAiÀÄ°è ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 498(J), 504, 506, 114 L¦¹ ºÁUÀÆ PÀ®A 3-4 ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ¤µÉÃzÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ jÃvÁå ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ¬ÄAzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ DgÉÆÃ¥À ¸Á©üÃvÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

DgÉÆÃ¦-2, DgÉÆÃ¦-3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆÃ¦-4 gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ vÀ¤SÉUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÑ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄªÀÅ vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉÕ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉÕ vÉgÀªÀÅUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¯ÁUÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ."

A perusal at the complaint and the summary of the charge

sheet would clearly indicate that offences are against the

husband and none against the members of the family i.e.,

petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4, that would touch upon the ingredients

of either Section 498A or 506 of the IPC. As there are no

allegations against other members of the family, if the

proceedings are permitted to continue would fall foul of the

judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of

KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE SC 162, wherein, the Apex

Court holds as follows:

"Issue Involved

"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. [(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 v. State of Bihar [(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 v. State of Jharkhand [(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 v. State of UP [(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 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 [(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 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 afore-quoted judgment and the facts

obtaining in the case at hand, proceedings against petitioner

Nos.2 to 4 is unsustainable.

Insofar as petitioner No.1 - husband is concerned, both

the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet (supra)

would indicate certain offences that would undoubtedly touch

upon the ingredients of Section 498A or 506 of the IPC.

Therefore, while sustaining the proceedings against

accused No.1 - husband, proceedings against other members of

the family - accused Nos.2 to 4 is required to be obliterated as

the offences are not against the State.