Karnataka High Court

Ravikanth vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                            1



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.1031 OF 2021

BETWEEN

1.    RAVIKANTH
      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
      S/O NAGARAJ

2.    SMT. MANJULA
      AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
      W/O NAGARAJ

3.    NAGARAJU
      AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
      S/O ARASAPPA

      ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.20
      SUPRADEEPA NILAYA
      BEHIND ST. JOHN'S SCHOOL
      PAPAREDDY PALYA
      NAGARABHAVI
      BENGALURU - 560072
                                        ... PETITIONERS

[BY SRI. M.T.NANAIAH, SENIOR ADV. FOR
    SRI. MRC MANOHAR, ADV.]

AND

1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION
      ANNAPURNESHWARI NAGAR
                                  2



     BENGALURU - 560072
     REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT BUILDING
     BENGALURU - 560001

2.   SMT. SOWMYA
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
     W/O RAVIKANTH
     R/AT NO.20, SUPRADEEPA NILAYA
     BEHIND ST.JOHN'S SCHOOL
     PAPAREDDY PALYA
     NAGARABHAVI
     BENGALURU - 560072
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI. M.C.VEERABHADRAIAH, ADV.]

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1250/2020 (CR.NO.250/2019)
REGISTERED BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGAR POLICE,
BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 323 R/W 34
OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE V ACMM,
BENGALURU.

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

                          ORDER

Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.M.T.Nanaiah,

appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel

Sri M.C.Veerabhadraiah, learned counsel for respondent

No.2 and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State.

2. The petitioners are before this Court calling in

question the proceedings in C.C.No.1250/2020, registered

for offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 323 read

with Section 34 of IPC.

3. Before embarking upon the consideration of the

dispute in the lis, I deem it appropriate to notice the

relationship between the parties to the lis. Respondent No.2

is the complainant - wife of the first petitioner, petitioner

No.2 is the mother-in-law of the complainant, petitioner No.3

is the father-in-law of the complainant.

4. The marriage between the complainant and

petitioner No.1 takes place on 08.06.2019 and from the

wedlock, the couple also have a daughter. When the

relationship between the two (husband and wife) turns sour,

a complaint is registered on 04.11.2019 by respondent No.2

alleging offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323 read

with Section 34 of IPC. The Police after investigation have

filed a charge sheet for the aforesaid offences against all the

accused including the petitioners herein. Challenging the

filing of the charge sheet and the proceedings in

C.C.No.1250/2020, the petitioners are before this Court.

5. Learned Senior counsel taking this Court

through the documents appended to the petition would

submit that there are no allegations that would even touch

upon the ingredients of Section 498(A) of IPC. At best, there

would be grievances between the husband and the wife not

the members of the family. The proceedings could not be

initiated on the basis of such grievance.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel

representing respondent No.2 refute the submissions made

by the learned Senior counsel to contend that there are clear

allegations in the complaint, the statements and charge

sheet i.e., filed by the Police and it is a matter of trial that

the petitioners to come out clean.

7. Learned HCGP would toe the lines of the learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and further contends

that there are allegations that would touch upon the

ingredients of the Section 498(A) of IPC and it is a matter of

trial that the petitioner should come out clean.

8. I have given anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel

appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

9. Since the entire issues springs from the

complaint, it is germane to notice the complaint registered

by respondent No.2, it reads as follows:

"ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸ËªÀÄå W/O gÀ«PÁAvï DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ 8.6.2012 gÀAzÀÄ gÀ«PÁAvï CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ªÁºÀªÁVzÉÝ. CªÀgÀÄ¶ðzÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÁÝ¼É. CªÀgÀÄµÀð¢AzÀ®Æ UÀAqÀ gÀ«PÁAvï CvÉÛ ªÀÄAdÄ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁªÀ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ CªÀjAzÀ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À »A¸É C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É. 1.2.2019 gÀAzÀÄ UÀAqÀ gÀ«PÁAvï CvÉÛ ªÀÄAdÄ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁªÀ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ C£Àß¥ÀÆuÉÃð±Àéj ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹zÉÝÃ£É. ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ÀgÀ ¸À®ºÉAiÀÄAvÉ E§âgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr MnÖUÉ EgÀ®Ä ¸À®ºÉ ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ. EzÀ DzÀ ªÉÄÃ®Æ CªÀgÀÄ £À£À£ÀÄß §AzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ DUÀ¸ïÖ 2019 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀéEZÉÑAiÀÄAvÉ £À£Àß CtÚ£À eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÀÄ. DzÀgÀÆ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛgÀ°®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁPÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÉ JAzÀÄ dUÀ¼ÀªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ.

CzÀ DzÀ 3£ÉÃ ¢£ÀzÀ¯ÉèÃ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ¯É EgÀÄªÀ mÉgÉ¸ï PÉÆÃuÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀÄªÀAvÉ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ DzÀgÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ M¥Àà°®è §®ªÀAvÀªÁV UÀAqÀ gÀ«PÁAvï CvÉÛ ªÀÄAdÄ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ºÉÆgÀºÁQzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ«£ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÉÄÃ® EgÀÄªÀ mÉgÉ¸ï PÉÆÃuÉAiÀÄ°è EzÉÝ DzÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÀUÉ UÀAqÀ CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ CªÀåZÀÑ ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸ÉPÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. EµÁÖzÀgÀÆ UÀAqÀ gÀ«PÁAvï £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ EgÀÄwÛgÀ°®è.

£ÀAvÀgÀ 23/10/2019 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ gÀ«PÁAvï CvÉÛ ªÀÄAdÄ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁªÀ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ J¼ÉzÀÄ CªÁåZÀÑ ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆ¼É JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ZÀ¥Àà°¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄ£À §AzÀAvÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÉÆgÀ ºÁQzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV Essential ºÁ¹àl¯ï£À°è aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

DzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ gÀ«PÁAvï CvÉÛ ªÀÄAdÄ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁªÀ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ zÉÆgÀQ¹ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÃ½PÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É."

10. The police after investigation have filed a charge

sheet after recording the statement of several witnesses. The

summary of the charge sheet reads as follows:

"¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ C£Àß¥ÀÆuÉÃð±Àéj£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À £ÁUÀgÀ¨sÁ« 2£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀ, ¥Á¥ÀgÉrØ¥Á¼ÀåzÀ, ¸ÉÃAmï eÁ£ï ¸ÀÆÌ¯ï »A¨sÁUÀ EgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.20, ¸ÀÄ¥Àæ¢Ã¥À ¤®AiÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁzÀ F zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ PÁ®A £ÀA.02 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ J-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-3 £ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ

ªÀÄUÀ J-1 DgÉÆÃ¦UÉ, ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr M¦àPÉÆAqÀÄ eÁÕ£À¨sÁgÀw ¸ÀPÀð¯ï £À°ègÀÄªÀ J¸ï.«PÉ PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:09/11/2014 gÀAzÀÄ »AzÀÆ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ±Á¸ÉÆÛçÃPÀÛªÁV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁÝUÀ J-1 jAzÀ J-3 gÀ ªÀgÉV£À DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄªÀÅ d¤¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ CwAiÀiÁzÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23/10/2019 gÀAzÀÄ J-1 jAzÀ J-3 gÀªÀgÉV£À DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ J-1£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ ZÀ¥Àà°¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £ÉÆÃªÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁr, ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ DZÉUÉ ºÁQ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ¬ÄAzÀ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À CrAiÀÄ°è D¥Á¢vÀgÀÄ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀ J¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ F zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ."

11. The summary of the charge sheet (supra) would

clearly indicate no such offence against either of the in-laws

or relatives of the accused No.1-husband. Independent

witnesses have also given their statements which forms the

part of the charge sheet material and the summary. Though

statement of witnesses cannot be used to quash the

proceedings, since column No.7 of the charge sheet (supra) is

a summary of those statements, I deem it appropriate to

quote the statement of the complainant in the peculiar facts

of this case. The relevant portion reads as follows:

"DUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ vÀ£Àß UÀAqÀ gÀ«PÁAvï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CvÉÛ ªÀÄAdÄ¼À, ªÀiÁªÀ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£ÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj AiÀiÁPÉ §AzÉ £ÀªÀÄä eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°ègÀ®Ä ¤£ÀUÉ CªÀPÁ±À PÉÆqÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ mÉgÉÃ¸ï £À°ègÀÄªÀ MAzÀÄ gÀÆ«Ä£À°è Ej¹ AiÀiÁPÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ:23/10/2019 gÀAzÀÄ gÀ«PÁAvï, ªÀÄAdÄ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ¸ËªÀÄå¼À eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ gÀ«PÁAvÀ£ÀÄ PÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ DZÉUÉ £ÀÆQ, ZÀ¥Àà°¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £ÉÆÃªÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁr ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ DZÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ¸ËªÀÄå¼À£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ°®èªÉAzÀÄ ²æÃ.¹zÀÝgÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¥Àwß ²æÃªÀÄw.®°vÀªÀÄä gÀªÀgÀ £À£ÀUÉ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. gÀ«PÁAvï, ²æÃªÀÄw.ªÀÄAdÄ¼À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃ.£ÁUÀgÁeï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÉÛ £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉÃ, UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É."

12. On a narration in the complaint, summary of the

charge sheet and the statements recorded by the police

particularly that of a independent witnesses, it clearly

demonstrates that the allegations of brutal assault or

otherwise is against the husband and the sprinkling

omnibus allegations are made against the mother-in-law and

the father-in-law. In the complaint, the summary of the

charge sheet and even the statements recorded, while

graphic narration is found insofar as it concerns the

husband. Therefore, if further proceedings are permitted to

continue against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 - mother-in-law and

father-in-law, it would run counter to the judgment of the

Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam

and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in

2022 SCC Online SC 162, wherein the Apex Court held

as follows:

"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 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:-

"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 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 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:

"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."

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 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)

Therefore, in light of the facts narrated hereinabove

and judgment rendered by the Apex Court, proceedings

against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 - accused Nos.2 and 3

mother-in-law and father-in-law would stand obliterated.

13. Insofar as it concerns the husband, the allegations

of torture runs through the complaint, statement and

summary of the charge sheet. In the teeth of such allegations

against the husband, which would prima facie meet the

ingredients of Section 498(A) of IPC, I deem it appropriate

that further proceedings qua the accused No.1 should be

continued.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the

following:

ORDER

i. The criminal petition is allowed in part.

ii. Proceedings against the mother-in-law and the father-in-law - accused Nos.2 and 3 stand quashed.

iii. The criminal petition insofar as accused No.1

- petitioner No.1 stands dismissed.

iv. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of his order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same would be influence or bind further proceedings qua accused No.1.