Karnataka High Court
Smt. Naseema S vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
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. 100071 OF 2021 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NASEEMA S. W/O. SHAFI AHMED,
AGE. 36 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
EARLIER R/O. RADIO PARK, BALLARI-583101,
NOW R/O. LAKKAMANHALLI, TEJASWI NAGAR,
SARSWATPUR, DHARWAD-580002.
2. SMT. SHAMEEM BANU W/O. SOWDAGAR
MOHAMMED QHUDRATHULLA,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYED IN
PRIVATE FIRM, R/O. DOOR NO.400,
16TH WARD, NEAR SAPTHAGIRI SCHOOL,
Digitally BASAWESHWARA BADAVANE,
signed by
VISHAL HOSAPETE-583201, DIST. BALLARI.
VISHAL NINGAPPA ... PETITIONERS
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
PATTIHAL Date:
2023.08.08 (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)
10:57:35
+0530
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583101,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
2. SMT. NISDHAD ANJUM W/O. ABDUL REHAMAN,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. NEAR SAPTHAGIRI SCHOOL,
WARD NO.16, BASAWESHWARA BADAVANE,
HOSAPETE-583201, DIST. BALLARI,
AT PRESENT RESIDING AT NO.L-1,
BLOCK NO.L, DAAR QUARTERS,
SATHYANARAYANPET, BALLARI-583101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.134/2020 OF
WOMEN POLICE STATION, BALLARI FOR THE
COMMISSION OF ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 504, 323, 506 R/W SECTION 34
OF IPC 1860 AND SEC.3, 4 DP ACT 1961, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
(JR. DN) AND JMFC, BALLARI IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4 ARE CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
ORDER
1. The petitioners / accused Nos.3 & 4 are before
this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime
No.134/2020 of Women Police Station, Ballari registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504,
323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC,1860 and Sections 3
& 4 of the D.P. Act, 1961.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
3. The second respondent is the complainant, wife
of one Abdul Rehaman, the first accused, who is not
before the Court. The petitioners are accused Nos.3 & 4,
who are the sisters-in-law of the accused No.1 - husband.
The second respondent - wife and the first accused get
married on 16.11.2008. Thereafter, it appears that the
relationship between the husband and wife turned sour,
which leads the wife to register a complaint before the
jurisdictional Police on 22.09.2020 venting out several
grievances against the husband and the in-laws, parents
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
of the husband - first accused. The petitioners are the
sisters-in-law of the complainant are also roped in. The
registration of the crime against the petitioners - accused
Nos.3 & 4 is what drives the petitioners to this Court in the
subject petition. This Court has granted an interim order of
stay and the same is in subsistence even as on date.
4. Shri Shivaraj S.Balloli, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners would submit that a perusal
at the complaint would not indicate any offence that would
become the ingredients of Section 498A of IPC. He would
seek quashment of the proceedings.
5. On the other hand, learned HCGP would refute
the submission seeking to contend that the matter is still
at the stage of crime and the investigation should be
permitted to continue and the petitioner should come out
clean in the trial.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed on both side and also perused the
material available on record.
7. The afore narrated facts lie in a narrow
compass. The offences alleged against these petitioners,
who are sisters-in-law of the complainant has become the
crime in Crime No.134/2020 for the offences punishable
under Sections 498A, 504, 323 & 506 of IPC. A perusal at
the complaint would indicate that no offence, much less
the ingredients of any offence that would become
punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323 & 506 of IPC
being present. Though the matter is still at the stage of
investigation and the investigation has not been conducted
on account of the interim order granted. looking at the
complaint which has no foundation even against the
petitioners except making omnibus and bald statements,
further investigation, if permitted to continue would run
foul of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonam and others Vs.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
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 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
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
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
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."
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
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."
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
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
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.
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
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
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
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
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
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
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
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
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
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
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
"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.
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.
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
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.
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."
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8191
CRL.P No. 100071 of 2021
8. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court
and the fact that the complaint does not narrate any
allegation against the petitioners - accused Nos.3 & 4, the
further proceedings require to be obliterated, failing which
it would become an abuse of process of law and result in
miscarriage of justice. For the aforesaid reasons, the
following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.134/2020 of
Women Police Station, Ballari registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 323, 506 read with
Section 34 of IPC,1860 and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act,
1961 is quashed insofar as it concerns the petitioners -
accused Nos.3 & 4.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Vnp*/Ct:Bck
