Karnataka High Court
Ramappa S/O. Nagappa Meti vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103937 OF 2022 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMANAGOUDA @ RAMAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA
METI, AGE. 66 YEARS,
OCC. RTD. EMPLOYEE & AGRICULTURE,
R/O. PLOT NO.56, 8TH CROSS,
VTC VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT,
TALUK. BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT,
PIN-587102.
2. SHARADA W/O RAMANAGOUDA @ RAMAPPA
VISHAL METI, AGE. 59 YEARS,
NINGAPPA OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. PLOT NO.56, 8TH CROSS,
PATTIHAL VTC VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT,
TALUK. BAGALKOT,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA DIST. BAGALKOT,
PATTIHAL PIN-587102.
Date: 2023.08.09 ... PETITIONERS
11:24:22 +0530
(BY SRI. ANAND .D. BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION,
HUBBALLI R/BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
2. KAVYA W/O. SHRINIVAS METI,
AGE. 26 YEARS,
OCC. WORKING IN INFOSYS BENGALURU,
R/O. #304, SAI PRIYA,
NEELA APARTMENT,
13TH CROSS, NEELADRI NAGAR,
ELECTRONIC CITY, PHASE-1,
BENGALURU CITY,
NOW RESIDING AT SHREYA NAGAR,
BEHIND TATVADARSHI HOSPITAL,
HUBBALLI, TALUK. HUBBALLI,
DIST. DHARWAD-580031.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING OF
COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS DATED
23.10.2019 BY THE IIIRD ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
HUBBALLI IN C.C. NO. 3299/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 498(A), 323, 504 AND 506 R/W/S 34 OF
IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 2 AND 3
ARE CONCERNED, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
ORDER
1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in C.C. No.3299/2019 on the file
of the III-Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubballi registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 &
506 read with Section 34 of IPC.
father-in-law and mother-in-law of the second respondent
/ complainant. The marriage between the accused No.1
and the complainant takes place on 24.02.2019. It
transpires that after the marriage, the relationship
between the husband and the wife flounders and on such
floundering of the relationship, the proceedings are
instituted by the respondent / complainant / wife, against
the husband and her in-laws by registering a complaint on
22.06.2019. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime
No.27/2019. The Police after investigation file a charge
sheet against the petitioners and the husband / accused
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
No.1. Filing of the charge sheet is what drives the
petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
would contend that on a perusal at the complaint or the
summary of the charge sheet would not indicate any
offences against the petitioners and further proceeding if
permitted to continue would become an abuse of process
of law.
5. Learned counsel Shri K.L. Patil representing the
respondent No.2 would vehemently refute the submissions
of the learned counsel for the petitioners to contend that
the Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet and
the petitioners who have also meted out certain torture
should be directed to undergo trial and come out clean in
the trial. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
6. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent
No.1 would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing
for the respondent No.2 in seeking dismissal of the
petition.
7. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The
relationship between the parties are, as afore narrated.
The second respondent / complainant register a complaint
against the husband and in-laws on 22.06.2019. The said
complaint becomes a Crime in Crime No.27/2019 for the
offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 & 506
read with Section 34 of IPC. The Police after investigation
file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as
obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows:
"EzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄ ¥sÀl£ÉAiÀÄÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ UÉÆÃPÀÄ® gÉÆÃqÀ ¦ J¸ï ºÀ¢Ý
¥ÉÊQ ±ÉæÃAiÀiÁ £ÀUÀgÀ 2 £Éà PÁæ¸ï ºÀħâ½î gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É dgÀÄVzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¦AiÀiÁð¢üAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄÄ D ¸ÉÃd £ÀA 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ¢.24-02-2019
gÀAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄ »gÀÄAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ²æà «dAiÀÄ ªÀĺÁAvÉñÀ C£ÀĨsÀªÀ
ªÀÄAl¥À E¼ÀPÀ®è vÁ : ºÀÄ£ÀUÀÄAzÀ f : ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃlzÀ°è £ÉÃgÀªÉÃjzÀÄÝ
ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁPÀ®PÉÌ ªÀgÀ£À ¨ÉÃrPÉAiÀÄAvÉ 60 UÁæA §AUÁgÀ, 25 ¸Á«gÀ
gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 6 ¯PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ
vÀAzÉAiÉÄà ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ CzÉ. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢ vÀ£Àß
UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ C°è J1 ¢AzÀ J3 £ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ
J®ègÀÆ PÀÆr ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV MAzÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀªÀgÉUÉ
¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉAiÀÄ°è EzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦AiÀiÁ𢠪ÀÄvÀÄÛ J1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ PÁgÀt C°è MAzÀÄ ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£É
ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ. ¦AiÀiÁð¢ E£ÉÆàù¸ï £À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ CªÀ¼ÀÄ
PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ D±ÉÃd £ÀA 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆãÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, CªÀ¼ÀÄ
jùªÀ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà EzÁÝUÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ £ÉÆÃr
¥ÉÆãï ZÉPï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÁr AiÀiÁPÉ
¥ÉÆãï j¹ªï ªÀiÁr®è AiÀiÁªÀ£À PÀÆqÀ ºÉÆÃV¢Ý CAvÁ PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆr
§r ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ D±ÉÃd £ÀA 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 £ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ
§AzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ F J®è «µÀAiÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢
¸Á±ÉÃd £ÀA 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 £ÉÃzÀªÀjUÉ J®è «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ
§Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉý D±ÉÃd £ÀA 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£À CPËAnUÉ 50 ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
ºÁQzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ 29-05-2019 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 3-00 UÀAmÉUÉ ¦AiÀiÁð¢
ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀA±ÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr CªÀ½UÉ ºÉÆr §r ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ CªÀ¼ÀÄ ¸Á±ÉÃd £ÀA
4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5 £ÉÃzÀªÀjUÉ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹zÁUÀ ¸Á±ÉÃd £ÀA 4£ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ºÉÆÃV D±ÉÃd £ÀA1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ¤UÉ ºÉý ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
E¼ÀPÀ¯ïUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ §ºÀ¼À vÁæ¸À
DVzÀÝjAzÀ ºÀħâ½îUÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ D±ÉÃd £ÀA 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ¢. 09-06-
2019 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 12 UÀAmÉUÉ ºÀħâ½è ±ÉæÃAiÀiÁ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ
¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ ¸ÉÆÃzÀgÀªÀiÁªÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ
ºÉÆgÀUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄ gÀ¸ÉÛ §¢AiÀÄ°è ¤°è¹ ¤Ã¤ ºÀt §AUÁgÀ vÀgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¤£Àß ¥ÀUÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ
§gÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ PÉüÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ¤£Àß fêÀ ¸À»vÀ
©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è ¤£ÀUÉ PÉÆAzÀÄ ºÁPÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ fêÀzÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ºÉÆÃzÀ
C¥ÀgÁzsÀ.
PÀ®A 498(J),323,504,506 ¸ÀºÀPÀ¯A 34 L¦¹"
8. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet
would clearly indicate that all the grievances, offences are
against the husband / accused No.1. Insofar as the
present petitioners are concerned, there are only bald
statements or vague omnibus statements with regard to
the allegations against them. This would not become
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 498A
of the IPC or even Sections 323, 504 & 506 of the IPC.
Finding no ingredients of the allegations that are alleged
against the petitioners permitting further proceedings
would run foul of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and
others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in
(2022)6 SCC 599, wherein the Apex Court at paragraph
Nos.10 to 21 has held as follows:
"Issue involved
10. 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 appellant in-laws are in the nature
of general omnibus allegations and therefore
liable to be quashed?
11. Before we delve into greater detail on the
nature and content of allegations made, it
becomes pertinent to mention that
incorporation of Section 498-AIPC was aimed
at preventing cruelty committed upon a
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
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 Section 498-AIPC as
instruments to settle personal scores against
the husband and his relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh
Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v.
State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472 : (2019) 1
SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed : (SCC pp. 478-
79, para 14)
"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 Act 46 of
1983. The expression "cruelty" in Section
498-A 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. [
Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a
matter of serious concern that large
number of cases continue to be filed
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
under Section 498-A alleging harassment
of married women. We have 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
visualised. 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."
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this
Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh
Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 : (2014)
3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was also observed : (SCC p.
276, para 4)
"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
quite a number of cases, bedridden
grandfathers and grandmothers of the
husbands, their sisters living abroad for
decades are arrested."
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC
667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been
observed : (SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)
"32. It is a matter of common experience
that most of these complaints under
Section 498-AIPC 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 is also a matter of
serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and
obligation to ensure that the social fibre
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 498-
A 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 fibre,
peace and tranquillity of the society
remains intact. The members of the Bar
should also ensure that one complaint
should not lead to multiple cases.
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of
the complaint the implications and
consequences are not properly visualised
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 the husband and all his
immediate relations is also not
uncommon. At times, even after the
conclusion of the 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 scrutinised 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 an amicable
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
settlement altogether. The process of
suffering is extremely long and painful."
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta
Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 :
(2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it
was observed : (SCC p. 749, para 21)
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to
take note of an apt observation of this
Court recorded in G.V. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad,
(2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733]
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 : (SCC p. 698, para
12)
'12. ... There has been an outburst of
matrimonial dispute in recent times.
Marriage is a sacred ceremony, the 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
commission of 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 other
reasons which need not be mentioned
here for not encouraging matrimonial
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
litigation so that the parties may ponder
over their defaults and terminate their
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."
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana
[K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC
452 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed
that : (SCC p. 454, para 6)
"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."
17. The abovementioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse
of Section 498-AIPC 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
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
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.
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a
perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-
2019, 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
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
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.
19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of
harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a
previous FIR Respondent 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 learned
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 1-4-2019, is distinct and
independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition
of an earlier FIR dated 11-12-2017.
20. 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 appellant in-laws would simply result in
an abuse of the process of law.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the
relevant circumstances and in the absence of
any specific role attributed to the appellant-
accused, 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."
9. In the light of the afore narrated facts
hereinabove, which are all matter of record and the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others (SUPRA) if
further proceedings are permitted to be continue, it would
become an abuse of process of law and degenerate into
harassment against the petitioners, and ultimately result
into miscarriage of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, the
following:
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8264
CRL.P No. 103937 of 2022
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C. No.3299/2019 on
the file of the III-Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC,
Hubballi for the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 504 & 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC qua the petitioners.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*/Ct:Bck
