Sri Huchappa vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 5032 Kant

                           1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.10134 OF 2021

BETWEEN:

1.   SRI HUCHAPPA
     S/O LATE MUNIHUCHAPPA
     AGED 65 YEARS
     R/AT NO. 660/9-1
     11TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK
     WEST OF KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
     JAYANGARA,
     BENGALURU 560 082.

2.   SMT. OBALAMMA
     W/O SRI HUCHAPPA
     AGED 55 YEARS
     R/AT NO.660/9-1
     11TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK
     WEST OF KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
     JAYANAGARA
     BENGALURU 560 070.

3.   SRI RADHA
     C/O RAMANNA
     AGED 38 YEARS
     R/AT NO.660/9-1
     11TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK
     WEST OF KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
     JAYANAGARA
     BENGALURU 560 070.
                            2



4.     SURESH RAJ
       S/O MUNIHOBALLAPPA
       AGED 42 YEARS
       R/AT NO. 660/9-1
       11TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK
       WEST OF KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
       JAYANAGARA
       BENGALURU 560 082.

5.     SRI SURESH RAJ
       C/O RAMANNA
       AGED 32 YEARS
       R/AT NO. 660/9-1
       11TH CROSS, 7TH BLOCK
       WEST OF KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
       JAYANAGARA
       BENGALURU 560 070.
                                         ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADVOCATE
    (PHYSICAL HEARING))

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION
       REPRESENTED BY
       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
       BENGALURU - 560 009.

2.     KUM.SAVITHA
       S/O LATE ANAND KUMAR
       AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
       R/AT NO.429, 9TH MAIN,
       5TH CROSS, 'B' MAIN
       BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE
       SRINIVASA NAGAR
       BENGALURU - 560 050.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1;
                                 3



    R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C.,PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
S.C.NO.1619/2018 (CR.NO.116/2017 OF BANASHANKARI P.S.,) ON
THE FILE OF THE LIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDE, BANGALORE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 376,
504, 417 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.


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


                               ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

proceedings in S.C.No.1619 of 2018, pending before the LIII

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of

Crime No.116 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under

Section 376, 417, 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri Hareesh Bhandary T., learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri Shankar H.S., learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1.

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

borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-

The petitioners are father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law,

husband of sister-in-law and brother-in-law of the 2nd

respondent/complainant. It is the case of the complainant that when

accused No.1, son of the 1st petitioner was working as a Data Entry

Operator in Semiconductor Technology and Applied Research Centre,

the complainant and accused No.1 got acquainted and fell in love. It

is the case of the prosecution that, accused No.1 assured the

complainant that he would marry her and on that score indulged in

physical relationship with the complainant. The complainant alleges

that accused No.1 withdrew from the promise of marriage despite

requests made by the complainant. It is the further allegation of the

complainant that accused Nos.2 to 6/the petitioners herein also

declined to accept the request of the complainant to get accused No.1

married to her and abused her with filthy language. On this ground,

the complainant registered the complaint in Crime No.116 of 2017 for

the aforesaid offences. The Police after investigation have filed a

charge sheet against all the accused. It is at that juncture, the

petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the subject

petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends

that the promise of marriage or physical relationship is not a fact that

the petitioners were aware of. Accused No.1 and the complainant

might have had such relationship and accused No.1 perhaps even

promised the complainant to marry her. But, there is no allegation

that can be made either under Section 376, 504, 417 or Section 149

of the IPC against the petitioners.

5. Respondent No.2 / complainant though served, remains

unrepresented.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on

record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship

between the complainant and the petitioners herein is as afore-

mentioned. The complaint that is registered against the petitioners by

the 2nd respondent/complainant reads as follows:

"gÀªÀjUÉ ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ£ÀUÀgÀ oÁuÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 50.

EAzÀ, PÀÄ.¸À«vÀ ©£ï ¯ÉÃ.D£ÀAzïPÀĪÀiÁgï 30 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À £ÀA.429, 9£Éà ªÉÄÊ£ï, 5£Éà PÁæ¸ï, '©' ªÉÄÊ£ï, §£À±ÀAPÀj 1£Éà ºÀAvÀ, ²æäªÁ¸ï£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 50.

¥sÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA.9480285291.

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: ºÉZï.gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï, EªÀgÀÄ ¦æÃw ¥ÉæêÀÄ JAzÀÄ £ÁlPÀªÁr £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀzÉà ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ.

F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀÄ||¸À«vÀ DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ SEMICONDUCTER TECHONOLOGY AND APPLIED RESEARCH CENTRE, Post Box No.1640, K.R.Puram, Doorvaninagar Post, Bangalore £À°è PÀ¼ÉzÀ ªÀµÀð 05£Éà CPÉÆÖçgï 2015£Éà ¸Á°£À°è, F PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ºÉÆgÀUÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É qÉÃmÁ JAnæ D¥ÀgÉÃlgï DV ¸ÉÃjPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁV ºÁUÉAiÉÄà ¸ÉßúÀ ¨É¼ÉzÀÄ, ºÉZï.gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀ¼ÉzÀ ªÀµÀð d£ÀªÀj wAUÀ¼À¤AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ¦æÃw ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ E¢Ýä CAzÀÄæ, £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÉ CzÀÄ ¸Àj §gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ. £À£Àß »A¨Á°¹ £À£Àß ZÀlĪÀnPÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ, £À£Àß §UÉÎ J¯ÁèªÀ£ÀÄß w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£Àß ¦æÃw ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ E¢Ýä CAzÀÄæ, £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆgÀ UÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄÀ, ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è M¥ÀÄàªÀÅ¢®è, ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀPÉÌ ºÉZï.gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è M¥ÀÄà¹ªÉ E§âgÀÄ MAzÉà eÁw DzÀjAzÀ K£ÀÄ vÉÆAzÀgÉ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è, £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß M¦à¹ªÉ JAzÀÄ CAvÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁgÀÄ M¥ÀàzÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV Register Marriage DUÉÆÃt JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ AiÉÆÃZÀ£É ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ EµÀÖ«®è ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ M¥Àà°®è. £À£ÀUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ §ºÀ¼À EµÀÖªÁV¢ÝAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ ºÉý £À£Àß £ÀA©¹ ©lÖgÀÄ.

ºÉZï.gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ ¦æÃw ¥ÉæêÀÄ £ÁlPÀªÁr £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹, £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀiÁZïð wAUÀ½£À°è zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ JAzÀÄ ºÉý UÉÆgÀªÀ£ÀºÀ½î ªÀĺÁ®Qëöäà zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV £ÀAvÀgÀ C°èAzÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉ MAzÀÄ ¤dð ¥ÀæzÉñÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV C°è AiÀiÁgÀÄ E®èzÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ JµÀÄÖ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ PÉý®è ¨ÉÃqÀªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ

£À£ÀUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁ E¢ÝÃAiÀi ¤Ã£ÀÄ E®è CAzÀgÉ E¯Éè ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛä JAzÀÄ ºÉý J®è vÀgÀ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr, DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ §ºÀ¼À vÀÄA¨Á ZÉ£ÁßV EzÀÝgÀÄ DªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅzÀÄ J®è ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. 2016gÀ dÆ£ï PÉÆ£ÉAiÀĪÁgÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è HgÀºÀ§â EzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý ºÁUÉAiÉÄà £À«Ää§âgÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ºÉýwÛä CAzÀÄæ, CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV §AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É FUÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹, £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä M¥ÀÄàwÛ®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÁUÀ, £Á£ÀÄ M¥Àà°®è. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ 2016gÀ dįÉÊ wAUÀ½£À°è ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5-6 ¸À® £À£ÀߣÀÄß CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgɹPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ. KPÉ DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è PÉêÀ® DgÀÄ-K¼ÀÄ wAUÀ½¤AzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ¦æÃw ¥ÉæêÀÄ ±ÀÄgÀÄ DVgÉÆÃzÀÄ K£ÀÄ vÉÆAzÀgÉ E®è CAzÀgÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ ¤ªÀÄä ºÀÄqÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä EµÀÖ«®è JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÉ, CzÀPÉÌ gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÁzÀ vÀAzÉ ²æà ºÀÄZÀÑ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ¬Ä ²æêÀÄw M¨Á¼ÀªÀÄä ºÁUÀÆ CPÀÌ ²æêÀÄw gÁzsÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁªÀ ²æà gÁªÀÄtÚ, vÀªÀÄä£ÁzÀ ¸ÀÆj gÁeï PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ EµÀÄÖ ºÀoÁ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ CAvÀ §®ªÀAvÀ¢AzÀ ªÀiÁr PÉýzÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ EgÉÆ «ZÁgÀ CAzÀgÉ £À«Ää§âgÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀzÀ §UÉÎ ºÉýzÉ, DªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸Àà®à ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár ¤«Ää§âgÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛë CAvÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ.

ªÀÄÆgÀÄ wAUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¸É¥ÀÖA§gï wAUÀ½£À°è £Á£ÀÄ PÉýzÀÝPÉÌ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ EµÀÖ E®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÉý F jÃw £À£ÀUÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹ zËdð£Àå¢AzÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß gÀPÀÛ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÀ (£ÉAlgÀ) §½ ºÉÆÃV £À£ÁUÁVgÀĪÀ ªÉÆøÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉý PÉÆÃAqÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÉÌ §gÀÄwÛ®è.

gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï vÀAzÉ, vÁ¬Ä ºÁUÀÆ CPÀÌ ªÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉtÚ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉøÀvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ DvÀäºÀvÉå ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¤zÁðgÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÀÄÄAZÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. FUÁUÀ¯Éà ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:23.09.2016gÀAzÀÄ ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉZï.gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgɬĹ «ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀAzÉ ²æÃ.ºÀÄZÀÑ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CPÀÌ ²æêÀÄw gÁzsÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁªÀ ²æà gÁªÀÄtÚ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß »jAiÀÄgÁzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀgÀ¸ÀágÀ PÀĽvÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. FUÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥À ªÀiÁrzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä

M¥ÀÄàUÉ E®è ¤Ã£ÀÄ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛÃAiÉÆà ªÀiÁrPÉÆ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï ºÉýzÀgÀÄ.

£Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è PÉýPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ºÉZï.gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï gÀªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ

- vÁ¬Ä ²æà ºÀÄZÀÑ¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æêÀÄw M¨Á¼ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ºÁUÀÆ CPÀÌ ²æêÀÄw gÁzsÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁªÀ ²æà gÁªÀÄtÚ, vÀªÀÄä£ÁzÀ ¸ÀÄgÉñï gÁeï gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉÝãÉ.

D¥Á¢vÀgÀ «¼Á¸À:

ºÉZï.gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï ©£ï ²æà ºÀÄZÀÑ¥Àà (ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì 31) £ÀA.660/9-1, 11£Éà PÁæ¸ï, 7£Éà ¨ÁèPï ªÉ¸ïÖ dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ PÀjøÀAzÀæªÁqïð - 166, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÉÆ:9379555661/8892217772.

EAw vÀªÀÄä «zsÉÃAiÀÄ

¸À»/-

(PÀÄ.¸À«vÀ J) 22/02/2017"

Nowhere in the complaint does the complainant make a mention with

regard to any overt-act performed by the petitioners or the petitioners

inducing and instigating accused No.1 to break his promise of

marriage with the complainant. All that the complaint narrates is

that, the petitioners together did not convince accused No.1 for

marriage with the complainant and have abused her with filthy

language. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet. The

summary of the charge sheet reads as follows:

"F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ PÁ®A-3 gÀ°è÷ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À PÉ.Dgï.¥ÀÄgÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ Semi Conducter Techonology And Applied Research Centre£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ CzÉà PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è ºÉÆgÀÄUÀÄwÛUÉ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É qÁmÁ JAnæ D¥ÀgÉÃlgï DV PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÁUÀ J1 DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀjUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁV ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ¢AzÀ M§âjUÉƧâgÀÄ ¦æÃw¹ J1 DgÉÆæ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉÄAiÀiÁUÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß 2016£Éà ¸Á°£À ªÀiÁZïð wAUÀ½£À°è J1 DgÉÆæ vÀ£Àß ¨ÉÊPï £ÀA.KA-05- HL-6973gÀ°è vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ UÉÆgÀªÀ£ÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ ²æÃ.ªÀĺÁ®Qëöäà zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV zÉêÀgÀ zÀ±Àð£ÀPÁÌV ¸ÁQë-9 gÀªÀgÀ §½ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ ¥ÀÆeÁ ¸ÁªÀiÁVæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ zÉêÀgÀ zÀ±Àð£À ªÀÄÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ªÁªÀ¸Àì §gÀĪÁUÀ ªÀiÁUÀð ªÀÄzsÀå ¹UÀĪÀ EgÀPÀ¸ÀAzÀæ PÉgÉAiÀÄ CAUÀ¼ÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV PÉgÉ CAUÀ¼ÀzÀ°è ¨É¼É¢gÀĪÀ PÀÄgÀÄZÀ®Ä VqÀzÀ ¥ÉÆzÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ M¦àUÉ E®è¢ÝzÀÝgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ J1 DgÉÆæ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ ¥ÀĸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ¯ÉÊAVPÀ QæAiÉÄ £Éqɹ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ MvÁ۬ĹzÁUÀ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ w½¹ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀÄrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛ £ÀAvÀgÀ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀÄrPÉƼÀî®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹zÁV ¸ÁQë -1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ J1 DgÉÆæ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV gÀªÀgÀÄ J2 jAzÀ J6 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ C£ÁåAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ £ÁåAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß PÉý ¸ÁQë 1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß J1 DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ PÉýzÁUÀ J1 jAzÀ J6 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß GzÉÝò¹ ¤ÃªÀÅ ©PÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¤A¢¹ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀj E¯Áè, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÀÆ¼É £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ZÉ£ÁßV®èªÉAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¤A¢¹ CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁr PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ DPÉAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¯ÉÊAVPÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð £Àqɹ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀîzÉà ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr £ÁåAiÀiÁ PÉüÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀjUÉ J1 jAzÀ J6 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¤A¢¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®A jÃvÀå zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ ¸À°è¹zÉ."

Even in the summary of the charge sheet, there is no allegation

against the petitioners. The allegation is against accused No.1, who

has had sexual relationship with the complainant on the promise of

marriage. This Court is not entering into the merits of the matter

insofar as accused No.1 is concerned. The petitioners who are other

members of the family are simply without any reason dragged into the

love affair of accused No.1 with the complainant. If further

proceedings are permitted to continue against the petitioners, it would

without doubt lead to miscarriage of justice and an abuse of process

of law. The Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v.

STATE OF BIHAR reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 162, while

delineating the issue of dragging other members of the family in a

marital dispute, where there should be no reason to drag them, has

deprecated the action of the prosecution in doing so. 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.4, 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."

Though the Apex Court was considering proceedings under Section

498A of the IPC or under the Domestic Violence Act, the principles

laid down therein would become applicable to the case at hand as

well.

8. The petitioners have no role to play in the affair of accused

No.1 with the complainant and they cannot be hauled up for offence

under Section 417 of the IPC for cheating or under Section 504 of the

IPC, merely because the complainant narrates that the parents of

accused No.1 and the family members did not agree for her marriage

with accused No.1.

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

ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in S.C.No.1619 of 2018 against the petitioners, stand quashed.

(iii) The observations made in the course of this order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case 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 the other accused.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nvj CT:MJ