Karnataka High Court

Smt. Gowramma vs State Of Karnataka on 10 March, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                            1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.8083 OF 2020

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT. GOWRAMMA
     W/O SHIVANNA
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     WARD NO.9,
     RAKSHANA PURAM
     HASSAN TOWN
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

2.   PAVITHRA B.S.,
     D/O SHIVANNA
     W/O ASHWIN G.,
     WARD NO.9,
     RAKSHANA PURAM
     HASSAN TOWN
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.

3.   PALLAVI B.S.,
     D/O SHIVANNA
     W/O ASHOK
     WARD NO.9,
     RAKSHANA PURAM
     HASSAN TOWN
     HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
                                              ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE)
                                  2



AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY HASSAN WOMEN POLICE STATION
       HASSAN DISTRICT
       REP. BY SPP
       HIGH COURT BUILDING
       BENGALURU - 01.

2.     JYOTHI T.R.,
       W/O NAVEEN KUMAR
       NAIDU WORK SHOP ROAD
       NEAR BEST COLLAGE WARD NO.14
       HASSAN TOWN
       HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201.
                                                    ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.YASHODA K.P., HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN SO FAR
AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED IN CR.NO.114/2020 U/S
498A, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT REGISTERED
BY HASSAN WOMAN P.S., HASSAN DISTRICT AND PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE 4TH CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HASSAN.


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

                                 ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling the

proceedings the crime No.114/2020 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Sri Pratheep K.C., learned counsel for the

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

Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Vijay Krishna Bhat M.,

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

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

borne out from the pleadings, are as follows

Respondent No.2 is the complainant, petitioner No.1 is the

mother-in-law, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are sisters-in-law of the

complainant. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime

No.114/2020. Marriage between respondent No.2 - complainant

and husband - accused No.1 (not before the Court) took place on

16.03.2017. On the relationship between them getting strained,

a complaint is registered by respondent No.2 for the aforesaid

offences. On registration of the crime, the petitioners have

knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently

argue and contend that the complaint nowhere makes out an

offence that would be punishable under Section 498A of IPC, as

none of the ingredients as is necessary is made in the complaint,

only an omnibus allegation with regard to certain statements of

abuse is made against the petitioners and would submit that the

petitioners are simply dragged into the proceedings.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2

refuting the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioners would contend that the complaint clearly makes out

offences against the petitioners and it is for the petitioners to

come out clean in the trial as it is only after further proceedings

are taken up, the role of the petitioners would come to light and

not merely looking into the complaint or the FIR, as the FIR

cannot be an encyclopedia of the facts upon which the offences

alleged.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties

and perused the material on record.

7. The afore-quoted facts not being in dispute are not

reiterated. Since the subject proceedings emerge from the

complaint registered against the petitioners by respondent No.2,

the complaint is required to be noticed. The complaint reads as

follows:

"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß ¥ÀwAiÀiÁzÀ £À«Ã£ïPÀÄªÀiÁgï £À£Àß ªÀiÁAUÀ®å ¸ÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ FUÀ PÉÃ¼À®Ä ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¤A¢¹, £À£Àß CvÉÛ UËgÀªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ£À eÉÆvÉ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ DZÉ zÀ©â £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CPÀÌ¼ÁzÀ ¥À«vÀæ ºÁUÀÆ vÀAV ¥À®è« ¸ÀºÀ EªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ J®ègÀÆ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÀgÀÄªÀAvÉ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É zËdð£ÀåªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀUÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: 1) £À£Àß ªÀÄ£À« ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01/03/2020

2) ¹éPÈÀ w ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¸ÀASÉå:76J/¢04/03/2020

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¯ÉèÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À«Ã£ÀÄÌªÀiÁgï ¢:16/03/2017gÀ°è UÀÄgÀÄ»jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è £À«Ää§âgÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÁV UÀAqÀ£À PÀqÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ 100 UÁæA a£ÀßªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 2 wAUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ZÉ£ÁßVzÀÄÝ, vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄvÉÛ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CPÀÌ ¥À«vÀæ ºÁUÀÆ vÀAV ¥À®è« J®ègÀÆ ªÀÄvÉÛÃ £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀgÀÄªÀAvÉ ¦ÃrgÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ mÉÊ®jAUï ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, EzÀjAzÀ §gÀÄªÀ DzÁAiÀÄzÀ°è fÃªÀ£À ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. ºÁUÀÆ £ÁªÀÅ CµÉÖÃ£ÀÄ ¹wªÀAvÀgÀ®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è UÀAr£À PÀqÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝ£Éß¯Áè PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

DzÀgÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ F »AzÉ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄªÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ C£ÉÊwPÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀªÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ F «µÀAiÀÄ w½zÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ EzÀgÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV PÉÃ¼À®Ä ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ EzÀPÀÆÌ ¤£ÀUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ «zsÀªÁzÀ

¸ÀA§AzsÀ«®èªÉAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¤A¢¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀPÀëtªÉÃ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. DzÀgÉ D zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£À PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß dgÀÄV¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. »ÃUÁV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£À PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀjUÉ EªÉ®è ªÀiÁªÀÄÆ°AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, EzÀPÀÆÌ CªÀjUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ vÀgÀºÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ªÀwð¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀAV-CPÀÌ EªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ PÀÆr £À£Àß §UÉÎ E®è¸À®èzÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ vÀgÀzÉ EzÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è CªÀ¤UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉÆAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É, ¤£ÀUÀÆ CªÀ¤UÀÆ K£ÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ DZÉ ºÁQzÀÄÝ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉ EzÀÝ°è ¤£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï ¸ÀÄjzÀÄ ¤£Àß£ÀÄß PÉÆAzÀÄ ©qÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥Áæt¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀjAzÀ »ÃUÁV £Á£ÀÄ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ºÁ¸À£À £ÀUÀgÀ ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£À PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀvÀvÀªÁV ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝzÉÝÃ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÀÄ ¢£À ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ ºÉÆwÛ£À HlªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀzÉ £À£Àß DgÉÆÃUÀåzÀ°è vÀÄA¨Á KgÀÄ¥ÉÃgÁVzÀÄÝ, D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV £À£Àß DgÉÆÃUÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄzsÁj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

EzÉ®èªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ C£ÀÄ¨sÀ«¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¢:29/02/2020gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ï oÁuÉUÉ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¤«ÄvÀÛ §A¢zÀÝ£ÀÄß w½zÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ¥ÀÄ¸À¯Á¬Ä¹ M¼ÉîAiÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ°è £Àn¹ £ÁlPÀªÁr EzÀPÉÌ ¥ÀÆgÀPÀªÁV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀjAzÀ®Æ PÀÆqÀ K£ÀÄ £ÀqÉzÉ E®èªÉÃ£ÉÆ JA§AvÉ £Àn¹, £À£Àß£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹ £À£Àß §½ EzÀÝ ªÀiÁAUÀ®å ¸ÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀÆPÀ ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄªÀ £É¥À ºÉÃ½ £À¤ßAzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀgÀzÀ §UÉÎ PÉÃ¼À¯ÁV ¸ÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄj®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹ £À£Àß ¸ÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr EzÀgÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ gÀÆ.50,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛ£É. DzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV £À£ÀUÉ ºÀt¨ÉÃPÁV®è, £À£Àß ªÀiÁAUÀ®å ¸ÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉÃ¼À¯ÁV CªÀ£ÀÄ E®è CzÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀ Vj« CAUÀrAiÀÄ®Æè CqÀ«nÖ®è, CzÀÄ £À£Àß §½AiÉÄÃ EzÉ JA§ÄzÁV w½¹zÁÝ£É. F §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ vÀPÀëtªÉÃ ºÁ¸À£ÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ CªÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ CªÀ£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ E®èªÉA§ÄzÁV ºÉÃ½¹, ¸ÀÄªÀÄä£É £À£Àß£ÀÄß UÀAmÁ£ÀÄUÀlÖ¯É PÁ¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CvÉÛAiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß §gÀ®Ä w½¹zÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀPÀÌgÉ PÁ¬Ä¯É, ©¦ EzÉ £Á£ÀÄ §gÀ®Ä DUÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÁzÀ vÁªÀÅ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀvÀ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ F §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ

PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß dgÀÄV¸ÀÄwÛ®è »ÃUÁV £Á£ÀÄ fÃªÀ£ÀzÀ°è wÃgÁ ¨ÉÃ¸ÀwÛzÀÄÝ, DvÀäºÀvÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÉÆîÃtªÉAzÀÄ wÃgÁä¤¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É £À£ÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ°è CxÀªÁ £À£ÀUÉÃ£ÁzÀgÀÆ ¨ÉÃgÉ jÃwAiÀÄ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁzÀ°è EzÀPÉÌ¯Áè £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£À PÀÄlÄA§ªÉÃ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆlÖ zÀÆj£À Cfð ºÁUÀÆ FUÀ¯ÁzÀgÀÆ vÀ«ÄäAzÀ F ¤nÖ£À°è £ÁåAiÀÄ ¹UÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ ¨sÀgÀªÀ¸ÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ PÁAiÀÄÄwÛgÀÄªÀ £ÉÆAzÀ ªÀÄ»¼É.

ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ,

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹

¸À»/-

(²æÃªÀÄw eÉÆåÃw) ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15/10/2020 ¸ÀÜ¼À:ºÁ¸À£À vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ."

A perusal at the complaint would unmistakably indicate

that there are no allegations or any overt act being performed by

the petitioners, who are mother-in-law and sisters-in-law of

respondent No.2. The only statement narrated against the

mother-in-law - petitioner No.1 is "¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉ EzÀÝ°è

¤£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï ¸ÀÄjzÀÄ ¤£Àß£ÀÄß PÉÆAzÀÄ ©qÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥Áæt¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."

Except the afore-quoted statement made by the mother-in-law,

there is no other statement made of any overt act being

performed against the complainant. The other two witnesses

who are sisters-in-law admittedly do not reside with the

complainant and there is no allegation except a general

statement at the end of the complaint being made.

8. The entire narration is against the husband - accused

No.1, who is not before the Court. Therefore, dragging the

petitioners into the web of criminal proceedings without there

being any reason or any overt act alleged against them is

unsustainable, permitting further proceedings to continue in the

light of the afore-quoted offences qua the complaint, would

without doubt be an abuse of the process of law and result in

miscarriage of justice. The view of mine in this regard is fortified

by the judgment of the Apex Court 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 facts obtaining in the case at hand and the

complaint not making out any offences much less for the offence

under Section 498A of the IPC, I deem it appropriate to

obliterate the proceedings against the petitioners in Crime

No.114/2020.

11. For the aforestated reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) The crime No.114/2020 registered by respondent No.1

is quashed qua the petitioners.

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the