Smt Swetha Kumari T P vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 4669 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                           BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.7472 OF 2021

                             C/W

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.8336 OF 2021

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.7472 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

SMT. SWETHA KUMARI T.P.,
W/O SHRIKANTH Y.B.,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
RESIDING AT: HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL STAFF QUARTERS
BYAPPANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 038.
                                                  ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       NYAMATHI POLICE STATION
       DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
       REPRESENTED BY SPP
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     SMT. CHANDANA G.,
       D/O GIRISH S.G.,
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
                             2



     RESIDING AT GOVINAKOVI VILLAGE
     NYAMATHI TALUK
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 223.
                                            ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI B.M.HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ALL
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.570/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498A, 323, 506, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALSO SECTION 3, 4 AND 6
OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1 POLICE ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2
REGISTERED IN CR.NO.15/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HONNALI AS ABUSE OF
PROCESS OF LAW.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8336 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI BASAVARAJAPPA
     S/O NAGAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
     RESIDING AT DANIHALLI VILLAGE
     NYAMATHI TALUK
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 111.

2.   SMT. SHOBHA
     W/O BASAVARAJAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     RESIDING AT DANIHALLI VILLAGE
     NYAMATHI TALUK
     DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 111.

3.   SRI MALLIKARJUNAPPA @ MALLIKAPPA
     S/O SHIVAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
                             3



       RESIDING AT MADAPURA VILLAGE
       NYAMATHI TALUK
       DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 111
                                              ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY NYAMATHI POLICE STATION
       DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
       REPRESENTED BY SPP
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     SMT.CHANDANA G.,
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
       RESIDING AT GOVINDAKOVI VILLAGE,
       NYAMATHI TALUK
       DAVANAGERE - 577 111.

                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI B.M.HALASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ALL
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.570/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
498A, 323, 506, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALSO U/S 3, 4, 6 OF D.P
ACT INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE ON THE
COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HONNALI AS ABUSE OF
PROCESS OF LAW.

     THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  4



                               ORDER

Petitioners in both these petitions call in question proceedings

in C.C.No.570 of 2020 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and

JMFC, Honnali, registered for offences punishable under Sections

498A, 323, 506, 109 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6

of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Criminal Petition No.7472 of 2021 is preferred by the sister-

in-law/accused No.4 of the complainant/2nd respondent. Criminal

Petition No.8336 of 2021 is preferred by distant relatives of accused

No.1 in C.C.No.570 of 2020. The complainant in both these cases is

the second respondent, wife of accused No.1, who is not before the

Court.

3. Heard Sri Kashinath J.D., learned counsel for the petitioners,

Sri Shankar H.S, learned High Court Government Pleader for the 1st

respondent - State and Sri B.M.Halaswamy, learned counsel for the

2nd respondent, in both these petitions.

4. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions, as

borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

For the sake of convenience, the pleadings in Criminal Petition

No.7472 of 2021 would be narrated. The complainant/2nd respondent

got married on 30.04.2018 to accused No.1/Sri Shivakumar. It

appears that the relationship between accused No.1 and the

complainant got so strained that a complaint was registered by the

2nd respondent/ wife on several members of the family on 22-02-

2020, alleging that the family members including the husband have

harassed her and have meted out mental torture demanding dowry.

It is upon the said complaint, a FIR came to be registered in Crime

No.15 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506,

109, 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition

Act, 1961. The Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet and

the learned Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offences, the

case is pending in C.C.No.570 of 2020, for offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 323, 506, 109 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Sections

3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. It is at that juncture, the

petitioners in both these petitions have knocked the doors of this

Court with the present petitions.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would

submit that the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.7472 of 2021 is the

younger sister of accused No.1, who resides at Bangalore and the

couple were living at Shimoga after their marriage. The younger sister

neither stayed nor visited the couple frequently for making the

allegations as made in the complaint or the charge sheet. The

petitioners in Criminal Petition No.8336 of 2021 are relatives of

accused No.1 and are living separately in Nyamathi Taluk, Davangere

and have no contact whatsoever with the couple. The petitioners in

both these cases are simply dragged into the web of criminal

proceedings without any allegation against them.

6. On other hand, the learned counsel representing the 2nd

respondent would vehemently refute the submissions and contends

that the petitioners also participated in evicting the complainant from

the house at which time, they have hurled certain abuses. Therefore,

it is a matter of trail for the petitioners to come out clean.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on

record.

8. The aforementioned relationship between the parties and the

date of marriage of the complainant with accused No.1 are not in

dispute. The entire issue now springs from the complaint that is

registered against several members of the family including the

petitioners. The petitioners are accused Nos.4, 5, 6 and 8. The role of

the petitioners right from the registration of the complaint is required

to be noticed. Therefore, the complaint is extracted hereunder for the

purpose of quick reference:

              "UÉ,                                                ¢£ÁAPÀ:22/02/2020

              ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¸À¨ï E£Éì÷àPÀÖgï
              £ÁåªÀÄw ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ
              £ÁåªÀÄw.

              EAzÀ,

              ZÀAzÀ£À G (¥ÀÆtÂðªÀÄ) ©£ï Vjñï S.G.,
              29 ªÀµÀð °AUÁAiÀÄÛgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É PÉ®¸À
              ªÁ¸À UÉÆë£ÀPÉÆë, £ÁåªÀÄw vÁ||
              ªÉÆ.£ÀA.:-7760061912, 9448401707

              ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß ¥Àw qÁ|| ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï n.¦. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ, vÁ¬Ä, £Á¢¤ gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ.

£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÀVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ £ÁªÀÅ JgÀqÀÄ d£À ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄPÀ̽zÀÄÝ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉAiÀĪÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß CPÀÌ ZÉÊvÀæ ©, £ÀAvÀgÀ JgÀqÀ£ÉAiÀĪÀ¼ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ZÀAzÀ£À f EgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £À£ÀߣÀÄß ºÉÆ£Áß½ mË£ï ªÁ¹ wÃxÀð¥ÀàgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ qÁ||²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:30/04/2018 gÀAzÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ®UÁ£ï PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ UÀÄgÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀgÉÆÃ¥ÀZÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV 250 UÁæA §AUÁgÀzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ 6 ®PÀë £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt 5 PÉf ¨É½î ¸ÁªÀiÁfUÀ¼ÀÄ &

¸ÉÆä n.«., gɦüædgÉÃlgï, ªÀÄAZÀ, ºÁ¹UÉ, ªÁ¶AUï ªÀĶ£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹Öïï CqÀÄUÉ ¥ÁvÉæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß GqÀÄUÉÆgÉAiÀiÁV PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ. ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ®UÁ£ï PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 20 ®PÀë gÀÆ RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr £ÁªÉà ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÉݪÀÅ. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3 wAUÀ¼À PÁ® £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À eÉÆvÉ C£ÉÆåãÀåªÁV fêÀ£À ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÀUÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ qÁ|| ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CvÉÛ ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄä, ªÀiÁªÀ wÃxÀð¥Àà, £Á¢¤ ±ÉéÃvÁ PÉÆÃA.²æÃPÁAvï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ vÀAzÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ¸ÁPÁUÀÄwÛ®è ¤£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV E`£ÀÆß ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁqÀ£ÁrzÀÝ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¤£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÉÆr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è, PÁgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¨Á CAvÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀ §½ ºÉýPÉÆArzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÀÄÛ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄRAqÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉýzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÁªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ.

£ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¸ÀħâAiÀÄå D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è qÉAl¯ï ¥ÉÆæ¥sɸÀgï PÉ®¸À ªÀÄqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß CvÉÛ-ªÀiÁªÀ £Á¢¤ QgÀÄPÀļÀ eÁ¹Û DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ E§âgÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ £ÀAd¥Àà ¯ÉÃOmï°è ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£É ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÉݪÀÅ. C°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¥Àæw ¢£À ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÁUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ vÀAzÉ-vÁ¬Ä, £Á¢¤ gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ C°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ UÀAqÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ ¸ÀÄzsÁj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ fêÀ£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ CAvÀ §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ 29/06/2019 ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ ªÀÄ»¼Á ¸ÁAvÀé£À PÉÃAzÀæzÀ°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ C°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄ §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉýzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ §zÀ¯ÁVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¢:10/06/2019gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ & £À£Àß CvÉÛ ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁªÀ wÃxÀð¥Àà £Á¢¤ ±ÉéÃvÁ PÉÆÃA. ²æÃPÁAvï gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¤£Àß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ E£ÀÄß ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀÄqÀØ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀ¨ÉÃqÀ CAvÀ J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ²ªÀªÉÆUÀ΢AzÀ £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ UÉÆë£ÀPÉÆë UÁæªÀÄzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ©lÄÖ, E£ÀÄß ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ zÀÄqÀØ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ C°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀĪÀºÁV®è CAvÀ ºÉý £À£ÀߣÀÄß

PÁj¤AzÀ E½¹zÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §¤ß CAvÀ PÀgÉzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ PÁj¤AzÀ E½zÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÆ ¨ÉÃqÁ, ¤£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÆ ¨ÉÃqÀ ªÀÄAiÀiÁðzɬÄAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÉýzÀµÀÄÖ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ vÁ CAvÀ CAzÀªÀgÉà PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄÊPÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ vÀgÀ¢zÀÝgÉ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß fêÀAvÀ G½¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÀ ºÉý ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. ºÉÆÃzÀªÀgÀÆ E®èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß PÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¸ÀÄwÛ®è. EzÀPÉ̯Áè zÁ¤ºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁzÀ §¸ÀªÀgÁd¥Àà ©£ï £ÁUÀ¥Àà, EªÀgÀ ¥Àwß ±ÉÆèsÀ, ªÀiÁzÀ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÉñÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ°èPÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ PÀĪÀÄäPÀÄÌ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 08/02/2020 gÀAzÀÄ SÁ° ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀiÁzÀ ºÉÆ£Áß½UÉ ¸ÁV¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÀ «µÀAiÀÄ w½zÀÄ F §UÉÎ ¢:10/02/2020 gÀAzÀÄ £ÁåªÀÄw ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÉÝ£ÀÄ.

£À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ CAvÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ PÁzÉ£ÀÄ, DzÀgÉ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉ EzÀÄÝzÀÝjAzÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ -vÁ¬Ä, ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ZÀað¹ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀtPÁÌV ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ UÀAqÀ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï, £À£Àß CvÉÛ ¥ÁªÀÀðvÀªÀÄä, ªÀiÁªÀ wÃxÀð¥Àà, £Á¢¤ ±ÉéÃvÁ PÉÆÃA.²æÃPÁAvï gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄPÉÌ F ¢£À vÀqÀªÁV zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ EªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹ ZÀAzÀ£À .f

¢£ÁAPÀ:22/02/2020gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß 12-30 UÀAmÉUÉ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV ¤ÃrzÀ °TvÀ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹ oÁuÁ UÀÄ£Éß £ÀA.15/2020 PÀ®A 498(A), 323, 506, 109 ¸À»vÀ 149 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A 03 & 04 r.¦. DPïÖ jÃvÀå ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹gÀÄvÉÛ.

¸À»/-

¥Éưøï G¥À ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ £ÁåªÀÄw ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè."

The only allegation against the petitioners in both these petitions is

that, they have helped the mother-in-law, father-in-law or the

husband by instigating them to behave rudely against the

complainant. The specific allegations are that, accused Nos.5 to 8

have helped accused Nos.1 to 3 to evict and throw her out from the

house. Except this bald allegation, there is nothing that would touch

upon the offences punishable under Section 498A or even Sections

323 and 506 of the IPC against the petitioners. The entire allegations

appear to be against the husband and the in-laws and it is for the

husband and the in-laws to defend such allegations. Insofar as the

petitioners are concerned, the summary of the charge sheet also does

not indicate any offence much less the ingredients of offence

punishable under Section 498A or 323 IPC. The narration in Column

17 of the charge sheet though is in great detail, what is found against

the present petitioners is only a line that they have helped in evicting

the 2nd respondent - complainant from the house. Column No.17 of

the charge sheet reads as follows:

"17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À PÀ®A 498(J), 323, 506, 109 ¸À»vÀ 34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 03, 04, 06 r¦ DPïÖ

F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¦AiÀiÁ𢠲æêÀÄw ZÀAzÀ£À f @ ¥ÀÆtÂðªÀiÁ EªÀjUÉ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÁ®A £ÀA 12 gÀ°è PÀAqÀ 01£Éà DgÉÆæ qÁ||²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ n.¦. EªÀ£ÀÄ UÀAqÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, 02£Éà DgÉÆæ ²æêÀÄw ¥ÁªÀðvÀªÀÄä EªÀgÀÄ CvÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, 03£Éà DgÉÆæ wÃxÀð¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁªÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, 04£Éà DgÉÆæ ²æêÀÄw ±ÉéÃvÁ EªÀgÀÄ £Á¢¤AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, 05£Éà DgÉÆæ §¸ÀªÀgÁd, 06£Éà DgÉÆæ ²æêÀÄw ±ÉÆèsÁ, 07£ÉÃ

DgÉÆæ ¯ÉÆÃPÉñÀ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 08£Éà DgÉÆæ ªÀÄ°èPÀ¥Àà EªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ 01 jAzÀ 04£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¸ÁQë 01 ²æêÀÄw ZÀAzÀ£À f @ ¥ÀÆtÂðªÀiÁ EªÀgÀ vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É £ÁåªÀÄw vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, UÉÆë£ÀPÉÆë UÁæªÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ, 01 jAzÀ 04£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÉÆ£Áß½ mË£ï ¤ªÁ¹AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, 05 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 06 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £ÁåªÀÄw vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, zÁ¤ºÀ½î, UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, 07 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 08£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £ÁåªÀÄw vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÀiÁzÁ¥ÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¸ÁQë 01 ²æêÀÄw ZÀAzÀ£À f @ ¥ÀÆtÂðªÀiÁ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß 01£Éà DgÉÆæ qÁ||²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgÀ n.¦. EªÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:30/04/2018gÀAzÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ mˤ£À ®UÁ£ï PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄA¢gÀzÀ°è CªÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀ ¥ÀzÀÝwAiÀÄAvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÉÆõÀPÀjUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV 10 ®PÀë ºÀt , 30 vÉÆ® §AUÁgÀzÀ D¨sÀgÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 01 PÁgÀ£ÀÄß PÉýzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÉÆõÀPÀgÀÄ 06 ®PÀë £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt, 25 vÉÆ® §AUÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 01 PÁgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä wêÀiÁð£À ªÀiÁr ºÀt, §mÉÖ, ªÁ¶AUï ªÉĶ£ï, n«, 03 PÉf vÀÆPÀzÀ ¨É½îAiÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, ªÀÄzÀgÀ ªÀÄAZÀ EªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV PÉÆlÄÖ PÉ®ªÀÅ §AUÁgÀzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄʪÉÄÃ¯É PÉ®ªÀÅ §AUÁgÀzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 01£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£À ªÉÄʪÉÄÃ¯É ºÁQ 20 ®PÀë gÀÆ RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 03 wAUÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À PÁ® ¸ÁQë 01 ²æêÀÄw ZÀAzÀ£À f @ ¥ÀÆtÂðªÀÄ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß 01 jAzÀ 04 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÉÆ£Áß½ mˤ£À°ègÀĪÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ¥ÀrAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ CAvÁ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ 01 jAzÀ 04£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ 05 jAzÀ 08£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀĪÀÄäQ̤AzÀ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀjUÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ vÀAzÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ¸ÁPÁUÀÄwÛ®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ±ÉéÃvÁ½UÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖ¹ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV E£ÀÆß ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀÝ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¤£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ E£ÀÆß £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÉÆr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è PÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ PÉÆr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¨Á ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è gÀzÀqÉà d£À ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄPÀ̽zÀÄÝ J¯Áè D¹Û ¤ªÀÄUÉà ¸ÉÃgÀÄvÀÛzÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ FUÀ¯Éà PÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á CAvÁ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÀzÉà ¥ÀzÉà ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ ¸ÁQë 11 VjñÀ, ¸ÁQë 13 µÀtÄäR¥Àà @ µÀqÁPÀëgÀ¥Àà, ¸ÁQë 15 f.«.ºÁ®¥Àà, ¸ÁQë 16 gÁdÄ.r.©., ¸ÁQë 17 ºÉZï.¹zÉÝñÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ºÉÆ£Áß½ mˤ£À 01 jAzÀ 04£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀiÁr 01£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ°èAiÉÄà ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄrPÉÆArj CAvÁ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ 01

£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ mË£Àß°è ¸ÁQë 08 CºÀäzï JA§ÄªÀgÀ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÁrUÉUÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ 01 ªÀµÀð ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, C°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ 01£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ¥Àæw ¢ªÀ¸À gÁwæ ªÀÄzÀå¥Á£À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀjUÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ C®èzÉà ¸ÀzÀj ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ 02 jAzÀ 04£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÉÆÃV 01 jAzÀ 04£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ±ÉéÃvÁ½UÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀÄ£É PÀnÖ¹ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ ºÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀÝ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉà EzÀÝ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ:05/06/2019 gÀAzÀÄ 02 jAzÀ 04£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV 01 jAzÀ 4£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¤£Àß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀĪÀªÀgÉUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀ¨ÉÃqÀ CAvÁ J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ²ªÀªÉÆUÀ΢AzÀ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É UÉÆë£ÀPÉÆë UÁæªÀÄzÀ CªÀgÀ ¥ÉÆõÀPÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ §½ ©lÄÖ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ C°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀĪÀ ºÁV®è CAvÁ ºÉý £Á®ÆÌ d£À DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀÄAiÀiÁðzɬÄAzÀ £ÁªÀÅ PÉýzÀµÀÄÖ ºÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁgÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á CAvÁ ºÉý ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀjUÉ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ªÉÄÊPÉÊUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ vÀgÀ¢zÀÝgÉ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß fêÀAvÀ G½¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è CAvÁ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ C°èAzÀ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 02 jAzÀ 04£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ 01£Éà DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÆ£Áß½ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ°è EzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¤£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄÄ CªÀ¼À vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß vÀgÀĪÀªÀgÉUÉ CªÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ 01 £Éà CgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀºÀ ©nÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

DzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÁUÀ C°èAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀÄ DdgÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ ªÀÄ»¼Á ¸ÁAvÀé£À PÉÃAzÀæPÌÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ C°è ¢£ÁAPÀ:03/07/2017jAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:17/08/2019 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀªÀiÁ¯ÉÆÃZÀ£É £ÀqɹzÁUÀ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àæw ¸Áj ºÁdgÁzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä 02 ¨Áj C°èUÉ 01£Éà DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀįÉÆÃZÀ£ÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ¯ÉÆÃZÀ£ÉUÉ C°èUÉ ºÉÆÃVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.

C®èzÉà 05 jAzÀ 08 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 11, 13, 15, 16, 17 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ºÉÆ£Áß½ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ°è ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀiÁrzÀÝ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄUÀ¼À°è 01£Éà DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ qÁPÀÖgï DV¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ ¤£Àß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ

PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ PÁgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÉaÑUÉ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀgÀzÉà EzÀÝgÉ ¤£ÀUÉ £ÁªÀÅ CªÀjVAvÀ®Æ ZÉ£ÁßVgÀĪÀ PÀqÀAiÀÄ°è ºÉtÄÚ £ÉÆÃr ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆr¹ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ ¸ÀĪÀÄä¤gÀÄ CAvÁ ºÉý 01 jAzÀ 04£Éà DgÉÆævÀjUÉ PÀĪÀÄäPÀÄÌ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ:08/02/2020 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 01£Éà DgÉÆæ ¨ÁrUÉUÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝ ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ J¯Áè ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀjUÉ w½¸ÀzÉà 01 jAzÀ 03 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 05 jAzÀ 08£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃgÉ SÁ° ªÀiÁr CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆ£Áß½ mˤ£À°ègÀĪÀ 01 jAzÀ 03£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¸ÁV¹zÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ ¢£ÁAPÀ:10/02/2020 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÁåªÀÄw ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è EzÀĪÀgÉUÉ £ÀqÀ¹zÀ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ ¸ÁPÁëzsÁgÀgÀ½AzÀ 01 jAzÀ 04£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉüÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà CAvÁ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr, PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀlÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A 498(J), 323, 506 ¸À»vÀ 34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A 03, 04, 06 r¦ DPïÖ jÃvÁå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¤ªÉâ¹PÉÆAqÀ zÉÆÃ¥ÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæ.

05 jAzÀ 08£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉüÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà CAvÁ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀjUÉ 01 jAzÀ 04£Éà CgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀÄ ¸À®ÄªÁV ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÀĪÀÄäPÀÄÌ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀlÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A 109 ¸À» 34 L¦¹ jÃvÁå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ £ÀªÉù¢PÉÆAqÀ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæ."

It, therefore, becomes necessary to consider whether further

proceedings should be permitted to continue against the petitioners

who have no role to play in the entire episode. The petitioner in

Criminal Petition No.7472 of 2021, admittedly does not and did not

reside with the couple. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.8336

of 2021 also did not reside with the couple. Being away and not in

contact, a solitary instance of meeting the parents of accused No.1

once and allegedly helping them in evicting the 2nd respondent from

the house, neither the complaint nor the charge sheet explains the

implications.

9. The further proceedings if permitted to continue in the teeth

of the complaint and charge sheet, would become an abuse of the

process of law and ultimately, result in miscarriage of justice. The

view of mine in this regard is fortified by series of judgments of the

Apex Court. In the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND

OTHERS v. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC

Online SC 162, the Apex Court has 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.

13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh

Sharma v. State of U.P. , 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 Bihar5, 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 Jharkhand6, 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   UP7,    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 Telangana8, 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."

The Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, while considering entire

spectrum of law has delineated the issue where other members of the

family are simply dragged into proceedings in a case registered for

offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and has deprecated

such action of the complainants and quashed such proceedings

against other members of the family. In the light of the facts obtaining

in case at hand as narrated hereinabove and the afore-extracted

judgment of the Apex Court, this becomes a fit case to exercise

jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and

obliterate the proceedings against the petitioners.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petitions are allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.570 of 2020 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Honnali stand quashed qua the petitioners in both the petitions.

(iii) The observations made in the course of this order is only for the purpose of consideration of cases under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the criminal Court in the conduct of trial against any other accused.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nvj CT:MJ