Karnataka High Court

Sri.Kiran S N vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                            -1-




                                                     CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                         DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                                         BEFORE

                       THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                          CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5728 OF 2021

                BETWEEN:


                1.    SRI.KIRAN S N
                      S/O. NAGARAJA S,
                      R/AT KUDIYANURU,
                      MALUR TALUK,
                      SONNAPPANAHALLI,
                      KOLAR 563130,

                2.    SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S S
                      S/O. LATE. SADHASHIVAIAH,
                      R/AT MALUR TALUK,
                      SONNAPPANAHALLI,
                      KOLAR 563130.

                      W/O. MANJNATH B K,
                      R/AT BENNEHALLI VILLAGE,
                      HARAPPANAHALLI TALUK,
                      DAVANAGERE 583127,
Digitally
signed by
PADMAVATHI
                3.    SRI. NAGARAJ S
BK
Location:             S/O. LATE. SADHASHIVAIAH,
High Court of
Karnataka             R/AT KUDIYANURU,
                      MALUR TALUK,
                      SONNAPPANAHALLI,
                      KOLAR 563130

                                                             ...PETITIONERS
                (BY SRI. B. SIDDESWARA., ADVOCATE)
                                -2-




                                        CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021


AND:
1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION
     REPRESENTED BY

     THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     BENGALURU DISTRICT
     HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
     BENGALURU - 560 009.

2.   SMT.S.M.MANASA
     W/O. VISHWANATH U,

     AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO. 310,
     2ND CROS, AC CROSS,
     BDA LAYOUT, EAST OF NGEF
     DOORWANI NAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 016.

                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
     R2 SERVED)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.142/2021
REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498(A) R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4
OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACTION PENDING ON THE FILE OF I
ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE-A.

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

                            ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

proceedings in Crime No.142/2021 registered for the offences

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

punishable under Sections 498A and 34 of the IPC and Sections

3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Sri.B.Siddeswara, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners and Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Before considering the case on its merits, I deem it

appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties. The

second respondent is the complainant. Complainant is the wife

of one Vishwanath.U-accused No.1 who is not before this Court.

Petitioners-accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 are the relatives of the

husband. Marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant

takes place on 21.5.2017 and on the relationship between the

family members of the husband of the complainant including

the husband turning sore, the complainant registers the

complaint on 10.07.2021 narrating circumstances of such

torture by the members of the family including the petitioners.

On registration of the crime, the petitioners knock the doors of

this Court. This Court, on entertaining the petition, has

interjected the investigation against the petitioners.

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that in the entire complaint there is no allegation of

any overt act being performed by the petitioners that would

become an ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC or other

provisions that are alleged against the petitioners and would

seek quashment of the proceedings, as unnecessarily the

petitioners who are the relatives of the husband are dragged

into these proceedings.

5. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government

Pleader submits that the matter has to be investigated to

ascertain the role of the petitioners in the alleged crime and

accordingly, seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the material on record.

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The

complaint registered by the complainant insofar as it concerns

the allegations against the petitioners are as follows:

".... .... .... ....

For six months i.e., from 15th September to 25 March 2021, they avoided all contacts from me and my family because I had informed everything faced cruelty, harassment, mental agony sufferings that I faced through in my husband and in-laws to my family. My father requested village heads for Panchayati after many requests and efforts to arrange a meeting and resolve this situation with my in-laws even during then my husband and my in-laws Suverna and Umesh attacked my parents with the help of Kiran S.N.Manvith, S.Shivakumar, S Nagaraja, and they demanded amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as additional Dowry to take me back to matrimonial house. After agreeing to the advice of the village heads I went back on the same day that is 24 March 2020. I was restricted to go to work and I was allowed only when I agreed to give them my salary. After few days the violence and abuse increased as I started telling my parents and everyone around me about the pain and suffering and torture.

.... .... .... ....

On 8 June 2021, my husband my mother-in-law Suvarna left me alone at home with my father-in-law and did not come back for three days. They were roaming places during lockdown with their relatives (S.Nagaraja, S.Shivakumar, Kiran S.N., Bharat and Manvith) My husband did not answer my calls or texts. After he came back on 11th June 2021 when I asked him on his whereabouts he threatened and beaten me to death he started fight at 11 PM with abusive language on me and my parents, he punched me in the face several times kept his feet on my neck while laying me down and literally spoke "I will kill you and it won't be a problem if I go to jail". My father in law was present at the scene, even he tried to slap me push me and locked me in my room I

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

somehow escaped to bathroom and locked myself and called the Hoysala Police Whitefield at 12:06 am. Constable Veerabadharaiah and his team came to rescue me. Immediately my father-in-law called all the relatives who were staying 28 km away, reached within 15 minutes. By the time police came I called my father who came simultaneously. Looking at my condition Hoysala police suggested me and my father that he should take me back to my parents' house on that night itself. It was a planned conspiracy by my Husband U.Vishwanath, my mother-in-law Suvarna, my father-in-law H.V.Umesh and relatives Kirana, S.Shivakumar, S.Nagaraja to kill me. All the violence on me and beating me was pre planned by these people and they knew that this incident was going to take place and they have committed illegal act and offence of dowry demand and domestic violence on me till today I am assault, cruelty, harassment, mental agony suffering caused by them."

Except the aforesaid narration in the complaint, there is

nothing in particular against the petitioners. Even in these

extractions hereinabove, there is nothing to show that the

petitioners have performed any overt act that would become an

offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

8. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have

conspired together and instigated the husband and other

members of the family to behave in the manner that is alleged

in the complaint against the husband. Except these sprinkling

omnibus statements in the entire complaint, there is no act that

would necessitate further proceedings be permitted to be

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

continued qua the petitioners. If further proceedings are

permitted to be continued, it would fall foul of the judgment of

the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @

SONAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS1

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

2022 SCC OnLine 162

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

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 Act46 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:-

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

"4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC 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-AIPC 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 grand-fathers 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 498AIPC 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

- 10 -

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

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 498Aas 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

- 11 -

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

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. Raovs. 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:

- 12 -

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

"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 dispute sand 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."

- 13 -

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section498A 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

- 14 -

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

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

- 15 -

CRL.P No. 5728 of 2021

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)

Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court as

afore-extracted and finding no allegation against the

petitioners, I deem it appropriate to terminate the proceedings

against the petitioners.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.142/2021

pending on the file of I Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District stand quashed

qua the petitioners.