Bharathi vs Smt. Anusha Sham
2022 Latest Caselaw 3469 Kant

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.6884 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1.   BHARATHI
     W/O KESHAVA NAIK
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     R/AT ARCHANA ARCADE
     FLAT NO.105, KUNJIBETTU
     M.G.M, UDUPI
     UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 118.

2.   SUSHEELA
     W/O SANNAYYA NAIK
     AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
     R/AT SRIDEVI NILAYA
     PARKALA
     UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 118.

3.   SURESH
     S/O SANNAYYA NAIK
     AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
     EARLIER RESIDING AT
     SRI DEVI NILAYA
     HERGA POST, HERGA TEMPLE ROAD,
     UDUPI DISTRICT
     NOW RESIDING AT
     SHREEDEVI GLASS HOUSE
     NEAR GEETHANJALI THEATRE
     MADI BUILDING
     UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 118.
                             2



4.     GEETHA
       W/O VIDHUSHEKAR NAIK
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
       R/AT NIDHI NILAYA
       NO.4-728, ALEVOORU ROAD,
       SHANTHINAGARA, MANIPAL
       UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 118.

5.     SHOBHA
       W/O BALAKRISHNA NAIK
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
       R/AT NELLIKATTE AKSAYA BUILDING
       NELLIKATTE, PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE,
       PUTTUR TALUK
       D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201.
                                            ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI LETHIF B., ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

AND:

SMT. ANUSHA SHAM
W/O YATHISH
D/O MANJUNATHA V.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
R/AT PANDURANGA HOUSE
NEAR PATRAO HOSPITAL
VIDYANAGAR, DARBE POST
PUTTUR KASABA VILLAGE
PUTTUR TALUK
D.K.DISTRICT - 574 201.
                                            ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE (VIDEO CONFERENCING))


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CRL.MISC.NO.31/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
                                 3



JUDGE AND JMFC PUTTUR, D.K ON A PETITION FILED U/S.12 OF
PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT.

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

                               ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the

proceedings in Crl.M.C.No.31/2020 pending before the Principal

Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, registered invoking the provisions

of Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act, 2005 ('Act' for short).

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

petitioners and Sri.S.Rajashekar, learned counsel appearing for

respondent.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as

borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The respondent is the complainant. Petitioner No.1 is the

mother-in-law of the complainant; petitioner No.2 is the grand

mother of accused No.1/husband; petitioner No.3 is the uncle of

accused No.1; petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters of petitioner

No.1. The marriage between the complainant and the husband

takes place on 29.11.2015.

4. It transpires that relationship between the complainant

and accused No.1 turned sore, on this development on

10.08.2016 the complainant appears to have left the

matrimonial house and continued to reside with the parents.

Based upon the said relationship turning sore, proceedings

under the Act are initiated by the complainant in

Crl.M.C.No.31/2020. Challenging the said action, the

petitioners are before this Court. The husband who is also

complained against, is not before this Court, in these

proceedings.

5. Since the entire issue springs from the complaint, the

relevant narration in the complaint is extracted for the purpose

of quick reference:

"6. I say that, after around 15 days of marriage, the 1st respondent very cleverly managed to collect all my gold on the pretext of keeping them safely in the bank locker.

But after that, he has never returned my gold

to me, not even to wear to any family functions and without my knowledge and consent pledged the same in Bank.

7. I say that, after two weeks of my marriage, the 2nd respondent / my mother-in-law Bharathi started to propagate badly against me with their relatives, friends and neighbours. As a result I was not allowed to go to anybody's house and also not allowed to talk with anybody who came to our house. I was viewed by the people in a very wrong manner. Even though the 1st respondent hails from Uppinangady, in view of his business they were residing at Udupi. Even the 3rd to 5th respondents were residing at Udupi and 6th respondent Shobha is residing at Puttur and would very often come to udupi and hence it was very convenient for them to meet regularly and conspire together against me. The 2nd respondent had started to create a gap between the 1st respondent and me. She used to fill my ears against him and vice versa. And unknowingly, our marriage started to turn sour. Her repeated lies made the 1st respondent believe it as a hard truth.

8. I say that, in the month of February 2016, I became pregnant and the 2nd respondent / my mother-in-law was not happy with this instead she became crueler to me and her torture and taunts kept on increasing. She had even gone to the extent of adding something to my drink and forcing me to drink it. Infact, I had severe vomiting during my pregnance and I was not given proper food, rest, nutrition and medicines. Due to which I had become very weak and weighed only 28 kgs."

A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that the

offences alleged are against the husband and the mother-in-law.

Specific dates and incidences of torture meted out by the

husband and mother-in-law are narrated in the complaint.

Therefore, it is for the mother-in-law to come out clean in the

trial.

6. Insofar as other petitioners are concerned, who are the

grand mother and relatives of the husband-accused No.1, the

complaint nowhere indicates any overtact performed by them.

The proceeding may have been invoked under the Act, the same

yardstick that is applicable for offences punishable under

Section 498A of IPC, insofar as dragging other members of the

family into the criminal proceedings, is applicable to the

proceedings under the Act as well. Therefore, on the same

yardstick, if the complaint is noticed, permitting further

proceedings to continue against the petitioners 2, 3, 4 and 5

would be an abuse of the process of the law.

7. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the

judgments of the Apex Court rendered in the case of GEETA

MEHROTRA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741, as followed in a recent

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN

KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND

OTHERS1, wherein it is held 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.

2022 SCC OnLine 162

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."

8. In the light of the complaint not pointing at any overt

act committed by other petitioners except the mother-in-law,

permitting proceedings against other petitioners would result in

miscarriage of justice.

9. For the afore-said reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The proceedings pending in Crl.M.C.No.31/2020 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, D.K., against petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 stand obliterated.

(iii) The proceedings against the petitioner No.1/mother-in-

law is sustained.

(iv) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against other accused pending consideration before the competent Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

bkp CT:MJ