Sri Purushotham vs State By
2022 Latest Caselaw 4705 Kant

     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.6653 OF 2020

BETWEEN:
1.     SRI PURUSHOTHAM,
       S/O RANGANATH,
       AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT IST MAIN
       2ND CROSS,
       CHINNAMMA LAYOUT,
       CHOLANAGAR,
       BANGALORE -560 032.

2.     SMT. LALITHA
       W/O PURUSHOTHAM,
       AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT IST MAIN,
       2ND CROSS,
       CHINNAMMA LAYOUT,
       CHOLANAGAR,
       BANGALORE -560 032.             ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P.M., ADVOCATE )

AND:
1.     STATE BY
       BASAVANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
       CHIKKAMAGALURU,
       REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       CHIKKAMAGALURU.

2.     SMT KAVYA SHREE,
       W/O VISHWANATHA K.S,
       AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT 3RD CROSS,
       HANUMANTHA NAGAR,
       RAMANAHALLI,
                                  -2-



      CHIKKAMAGALURU,
      KARNATAKA-577 101.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: B.J ROHITH.,HCGP FOR R1
    SRI: K.S GANESHA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                 -----

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE FIR AND
CR.NO.194/2015         DATED      01.12.2015       AND     FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1094/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF   THE     2ND    ADDITIONAL      CIVIL       JUDGE     AND    JMFC
CHIKKAMAGALURU.

      THIS    CRIMINAL      PETITION       IS    COMING     ON    FOR
ADMISISON,         THIS   DAY,     THE      COURT       MADE      THE
FOLLOWING:-
                             ORDER

Heard learned counsel Sri Narayana Swamy P.M.

for the petitioners, learned HCGP Sri B.J. Rohith for

respondent No.1-State and learned counsel

Sri. K.S. Ganesha for respondent No.2.

2. Petitioners are before this court calling in

question the proceedings in C.C.No.1094/2016 registered

for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 34 IPC

and sections 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

3. The second respondent is the complainant wife of

accused No.1-Vishwanath, who is not before this court.

First petitioner is the brother-in-law of the complainant-

second respondent and second petitioner is the sister-in-

law of the complainant. The complainant and accused

No.1 get married on 06.08.2012 and on their relationship

getting strained, a complaint is registered on 01.12.2015

by the complainant before the jurisdictional police alleging

offences punishable under sections 498A and 34 IPC. The

complaint is against several accused, two of whom are

before this court who are arraigned as accused Nos.2 and

3 in the said case. The police after investigation have also

filed charge sheet against all the accused, including the

petitioners. It is at this juncture, the petitioners have

knocked the doors of the court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that the petitioners who are accused Nos.2

and 3-brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant

have no role to play in the life between accused No.1

husband and the complainant. Learned counsel would

submit that the first petitioner was working at Gujarat

and Mumbai earlier and is presently residing at Bangalore

and second petitioner resides with the first petitioner. The

couple accused No.1 and the complainant were residents

of Kadur in Chikamagaluru District. Therefore, there is no

contact between the first accused and the petitioners

herein. He would submit that the petitioners are simply

dragged into this proceedings without there being any

reason.

5. There was no representation on behalf of the

petitioners on several occasions-on 01.09.2021 and

29.09.2021 and on 28.02.2022, this court had directed

listing of the matter as a last chance awaiting appearance

of the learned counsel. Therefore, counsel for the

petitioners is heard.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and

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

material on record.

7. Above narrated date of marriage is not in dispute.

The relationship between accused No.1 and the

complainant getting strained resulted in registration of a

complaint against all the accused.

8. Since the entire issues springs from the

complaint, the same is extracted for the purpose of quick

reference:

"MªÉÄä £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà PÀÆr ºÀQ vÀÄA¨Á ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ D¸ÀàvÉæUÀÆ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CrUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÆß ªÀiÁqÀzÀAvÉ vÁQÃvÀÄ ªÀiÁr JgÀqÀÄ ¢£À G¥ÀªÁ¸À ©Ã¼ÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, vÁ£ÀÄ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ Hl ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ w½¹ CªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ '¤ÃªÀÅ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ Hl ºÁPÀ®Ä ¸Á®ÄªÀÅ¢®è, wAUÀ½UÉ gÀÆ.10,000/- PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ D£ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ½UÉ Hl ºÁPÀÄvÉÛãÉ, ©nÖ w£Àß®Ä CªÀ¼ÉãÀÄ ªÀĺÁgÁtÂAiÀiÁ' JAzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. MªÉÄä £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆqÉvÀ wAzÀÄ £ÉÆë¤AzÀ QgÀÄZÁrzÁUÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß D¸ÀàvÉæUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV KlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ©zÀÄÝ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÉ JA§AvÉ D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è §gɹgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

£À£Àß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ°è §jà gÁf ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÀ¼Éà £ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, ¥Àæw ¸ÁjAiÀÄÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¨sÀgÀªÀ¸É ¤Ãr ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄwUÉ §A¢zÀÝ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §AzsÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ªÀiÁr PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. FUÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ »AzÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀģɬÄAzÀ Nr¹zÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è

EzÁÝUÀ E°èUÉ §AzÀ CªÀ£À vÁ¬Ä ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä PÀqÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ CªÀ¤UÉ §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉý ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆà ºÀtPÁÌV gÁPÀë¸À ¥ÀæªÀÈwÛ ¨É¼É¹PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CzÀPÉÌ M¦à £À£ÀߣÀÄß zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV §®ªÀAvÀ¢AzÀ £À£Àß vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÆý¹ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀÄgÀƦAiÀiÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁr PÉ®ªÉà ¢£À ªÀiÁvÀæ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ C°èAiÀÄÆ PÀÆqÁ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀåªÁV ¨ÉgÉAiÀÄzÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB £À£Àß §mÉÖ, §gÉ, MqÀªÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉà AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ©qÀzÀAvÉ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ FUÀ aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀ ºÀwÛgÀ £À£Àß ²Ã®zÀ §UÉÎ C¥À¥ÀæZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr £Á£ÀÄ J®Æè vÀ¯É JwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ NqÁqÀzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C®èzÉà ¢£ÁAPÀ 10/01/2015gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ¥sÉÆäUÉ ªÉĸÉdÄ ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÁUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉÆ¼É JAzÀÄ C¥À¥ÀæZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C®èzÉà £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ £À£ßÀ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¥sÉÆäUÉ ¢£À ©lÄÖ ¢£À PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ¢£Éà ¢£Éà ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

£À£Àß UÀAqÀ wAUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ gÀÆ.50,000/-UÀ¼À ¸ÀA§¼À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ ºÀtzÀ ªÁåªÉÆúÀ §ºÀ¼À EzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ £Á£ÀÄ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ ¸Àj, £À£ÀߣÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÆ K£ÀÆ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀAw®è JA§ ªÀÄ£ÉÆèsÁªÀ ¨É¼É¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß ¸Àj¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀiÁrzÀ £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ J¯Áè ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀßUÀ¼ÀÄ «¥sÀ®UÉÆÃArzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀÄ

£À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÉƨÉÊ°UÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÀÄ JA§ PÀ¤µÀ× ªÀÄAiÀiÁðzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÆß PÉÆqÀzÉ CªÀjUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F J¯Áè ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÀÆß £À£Àß vÀAzÉ CªÀgÀ ¥ÉÆä£À°è zsÀé¤ ªÀÄÄ¢æ¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä CªÀUÁºÀ£ÉUÁV ¹.r. gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è F ¦AiÀiÁð¢£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. C®èzÉà F zÀÆj£ÉÆA¢UÉ £À£Àß j¸ÉµÀà£ï£À JgÀqÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ RaðUÁV ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ PÁªÉÃj UÁæ«ÄÃt ¨ÁåAQ£À CPËAmï ¸ÉÖÃmÉäAmï C£ÀÄß £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥ÀqɸÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉýPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÁV MAzÀÄ ºÉtÚ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjAzÀ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÁV »A¸É ¤ÃrgÀĪÀAvÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, CªÀ£À ¨sÁªÀ ºÁUÀÆ CPÀÌ, EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀƤ£À£ÀéAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁV ºÁUÀÆ «ZÉÒzÀ£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¨ÉgÉƪÀÄzÀÄ ºÉtÚ£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÁV ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ ºÀÄ£ÀßgÀ¢AzÀ £À£Àß ²Ã®zÀ §UÉÎ C¥À ¥ÀæZÀgÀ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß fêÀ£ÀªÀ£Éßà ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁr £Á£ÀÄ DvÀä ºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ AiÉÆÃZÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄlÖPÉÌ PÉÆAqÉAiÀÄÄÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ DvÀ£À CPÀÌ ¨sÁªÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ºÉtÂÚUÉ DUÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ C£ÁºÀÄvÀUÀ½UÉ vÀqÉAiÉÆqÀبÉÃPÁV ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀPÉÌ CªÀjAzÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ gÀPÀëuÉ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ." (sic).

9. A perusal of the complaint supra would indicate

no allegation against the petitioners. Except bald

statement that all of them together have tortured the wife,

the allegations are against the husband and other

accused. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, there

are no allegations of any overt acts that would touch upon

the offences under sections 498A or 34 IPC or the

offences under Dowry Prohibition Act. A charge sheet is

filed by the police after investigation. Column No.17 of the

charge sheet springs as follows:-

"17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ «ªÀgÀ (CªÀ±Àå«zÀÝ°è ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ ºÁ¼É ®UÀwÛ¹) PÀ®A: 490(J) L.¦.¹.3, 4 & 6 r.¦.DPïÖ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÁ®A.£ÀA14 gÀÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ MAzÀ£Éà ¸ÁQëzÁgÀ¼À ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ- 06/08/2012 gÀAzÀÄ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÁ®A.£ÀA12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ MAzÀ£Éà DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆj£À UÁAiÀÄwæ zÉë PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ. zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÁ®A.12gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ §½ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉUÁV ¨ÉÃrPÉ ElÄÖ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt 2,50,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄ

¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë-2,3,4,5 gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, C®èzÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÁªÀå²æÃUÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÀĪÀÄäPÀÄÌ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, C®èzÉ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀ ºÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ a£ÁߨsÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì ¤ÃqÀzÀAvÉ MAzÀ£Éà DgÉÆævÀ¤UÉ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÆgÀ£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀĪÀÄäPÀÄÌ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ C®èzÉ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀĪÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ 100 UÁæA a£ÁߨsÀgÀtUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ. DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ ¥Àæw¢£À ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ²Ã®ªÀ£ÀÄß ±ÀAQ¹ C¥À¥ÀæZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß zsÀªÀÄð¸ÀܼÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV §®ªÀAvÀªÁV vÀ¯É ¨ÉÆý¹ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛ£É, C®èzÉ ªÉÄøÉÃeï PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ ¸ÀÆ¼É JAzÀÄ C¥À¥ÀæZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ J1, J2, J3 £Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ C®èzÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ¤ÃrzÀ a£ÀßzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß »AwgÀÄV¸ÀzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥À ¸Á©ÃvÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."

DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæ".

10. Even in the findings of the investigation, as

found in the summary of the charge sheet, there is one

statement at the end that all of them have together

tortured the wife complainant. Except this statement,

- 10 -

there is no other statement even in the charge sheet.

Therefore, permitting any further proceedings to continue

against the petitioners in the teeth of the complaint and

the charge sheet not pointing out any offences, would

become an abuse of process of law, as the petitioners are

simply dragged into these proceedings without any

allegation against them, the view of mine in this regard is

fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS. v.

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS, reported in 2022 SCC ONLINE

SC 162 wherein it is 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

- 11 -

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.

- 12 -

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."

- 13 -

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

- 14 -

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

- 15 -

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

- 16 -

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:-

- 17 -

"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 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

- 18 -

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

- 19 -

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."

11. In the light of complaint not making out any

offences, charge sheet not indicating any offences against

the petitioners and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, I deem it appropriate to obliterate all further

proceedings against the petitioners of the offences

punishable under sections 498A, 34 IPC and sections 3

and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, to prevent miscarriage of

justice.

For the aforesaid reasons. I pass the following:-

ORDER

i. Crl.P.No.6653/2020 is allowed.

ii. Proceedings against the petitioners in C.C.No.1094/2016 shall stand quashed.

iii. 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.

- 20 -

and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against other accused pending before any other fora.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*mn/-