Jayashankar Gouda S/O Nagana ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 3977 Kant

                            1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100074 OF 2021

BETWEEN
1.    JAYASHANKAR GOUDA
      S/O NAGANA GOUDA J
      AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
      R/O. NEAR CANAL,
      JALIHAL VILLAGE,
      BALLARI TQ AND DIST-583101

2.    SMT. RADHAMMA @ ANURADHA
      W/O. ERRISWAMI @ ALLANA GOUDA
      AGE: 30 YEARS,
      OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
      R/O. JALIHAL VILLAGE,
      BALLARI TQ AND DIST-583101

3.    LOKAMMA @ ANUPAMA
      W/O RAJSHEKAR
      AGE: 35 YEARS,
      OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
      R/O. BENAKAL VILLAGE,
      BALLARI TQ AND DIST-583101
                                           ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND
1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      (BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION),
                                   2




      REPRESENTED BY ITS
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      AT DHARWAD-580008

2.    SMT. SANDHYARANI
      W/O BASAVANA GOUDA K M
      AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE,
      R/O. BEHING SIDDARAMESHWARA TEMPLE,
      MASIDIPURA VILLAGE,
      PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
      SHANAHABOGARA ONI,
      B. BELAGAL VILLAGE,
      BALLARI TQ AND DIST-583101
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN FIR NO.26/2019
(BALLARI WOMEN POLICE STATION), CHARGE SHEET AND
ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS
DATED 18/07/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, BALLARI AGAINST THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 3
/ACCUSED NOS.4 TO 6 FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS
498A, 504, 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3
AND   4   OF   D.P.   ACT   AND       ALL   FURTHER   PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT THERETO INSOFAR AS PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 /A4 TO
6 ARE CONCERNED ONLY.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                3




                            ORDER

Respondent No.2 lodged the first information/complaint

stating that she is legally wedded wife of accused No.1 and

after her marriage she resided with accused No.1 to 3 and 7

in the matrimonial home. It is alleged that accused No.1 to 3

and 7 often used to quarrel with the complainant without their

being any reason and used to abuse her with filthy language.

It is further alleged that the accused harassed her without

providing sufficient food. It is further alleged that though the

petitioners, who are the accused No.4 to 6 are not residing

with respondent No.2, however, they used to visit the

matrimonial home of respondent No.2 frequently and

instigate accused No.1 to 3 and 7 to harass the respondent

No.2. The police registered the first information report

against the petitioners herein and other accused for the

offences punishable under sections 498A, 504, 323, 506 read

with section 34 of IPC and also sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. The police after investigation, filed the charge

sheet against the petitioners herein for the aforesaid offences.

The learned Magistrate, after taking cognizance, issued

process to the petitioners. Taking exception to the same, this

petition is filed.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that

though the petitioners are residing separately, they have been

roped in by making omnibus allegations and in the absence of

specific allegations that the petitioners subjected respondent

No.2 to cruelty, the filing of charge sheet against the

petitioners herein is not sustainable in law.

3. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for

respondent-state would submit that the allegations made in

the first information clearly disclose the commission of offence

alleged against these petitioners and as such, the charge

sheet filed against the petitioners is on the basis of available

material on record and same does not warrant any

interference.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

5. Respondent No.2 in the first information-complaint

has clearly stated that after her marriage she was residing in

matrimonial home along with accused No.1 to 3 and 7.

Petitioner No.1/accused No.4 is the elder brother of mother-

in-law of respondent No.2 and petitioners 2 and 3 who are

accused No.5 and 6, respectively, are the sisters-in-law of

respondent No.2. The only allegation against these petitioners

is that though they are residing separately, they used to visit

the matrimonial home of respondent No.2 frequently and

instigate the other accused to harass the respondent No.2.

Except the general omnibus allegations, there is no specific

allegation as against these petitioners that they subjected

respondent No.2 to cruelty and demanded dowry. In the

absence of any corroborative material and without any specific

allegations, the filing of charge sheet against these petitioners

is not sustainable in law.

6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan

Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others

in Criminal Appeal No.195/2022 (arising out of

S.L.P.(Crl.)No.6545/2020) at paragraph 18 has held as under:

"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.

7. In view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the decision referred supra, filing of the charge-sheet

against the petitioner, in the absence of any specific

allegation, is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly,

I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The criminal petition is allowed.

In the result, the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.277/2020 pending on the file of VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari insofar as it relates to petitioners herein, who are accused No.4 to 6, is hereby quashed.

In view of disposal of the matter, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE YAN