Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kairunnisa Samivulla Hangal vs State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 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. 104254 OF 2022 (482)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KAIRUNNISA SAMIVULLA HANGAL,
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. HANGAL, KACHAGAR GALLI,
HAVERI-581104.
2. MATIN SAMIVULLA HANGAL,
AGE. 20 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT
R/O. HANGAL, KACHAGAR GALLI,
HAVERI-581104.
3. SHABINA ABIDSAB DHARWAD,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. KCC BANK ROAD, RASULPUR ONI,
DHARWAD-580007.
Digitally
signed by 4. ABIDSAB DHARWAD,
VISHAL
VISHAL NINGAPPA R/O KCC BANK ROAD,
NINGAPPA PATTIHAL RASULPUR ONI, DHARWAD-580007.
PATTIHAL Date:
2023.08.08
11:04:40 5. MOHIN ABDIDSAB DHARWAD
+0530
(ACTUAL NAME IS MOINRAZA ABIDANWAR TINWALE),
AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. KCC BANK ROAD, RASULPUR ONI,
DHARWAD-580007.
6. JABINA NAZIRAHMED SUNKAD
(ACTUAL NAME IS NAAZMEENBANU D/O. NAZIRAHMED
SUNKAD), AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. B.ED STUDENT,
R/O. TILAVALLI VILLAGE, HANGAL, HAVERI-581109.
... PETITIONERS
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
(BY SRI. R M JAVED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ADUR P.S. HANAGAL,
R/BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580001.
2. BIBI AYESHA SUNKAD
W/O ZAKIR HUSSAIN
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. TILAVALLI VILLAGE,
HANGAL-581109.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP;
SRI. S P KANDAGAL, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED N.2 TO 7 ARE CONCERNED REGISTERED
WITH ADUR P.S. CRIME NO.177/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 149, 143 OF IPC AND
SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question registration of crime in Crime No.177/2022.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
and 7. In relation, 2nd respondent is the complainant. The
1st petitioner is the sister-in-law, 2nd petitioner brother-in-
law, 3rd petitioner sister-in-law, 4th petitioner is the
husband of the 3rd petitioner, 5th petitioner is the son of 3rd
and 4th petitioners and 6th petitioner is the sister-in-law.
The husband, accused No.1 is not before the Court.
4. The 2nd respondent and the accused No.1 -
husband got married on 24.12.2017 and on the
relationship between the husband and the wife
floundering, the wife registers a complaint alleging cruelty
at the hands of the husband and in-laws on 07.12.2022.
Immediately on registration of the crime, the petitioners
who are other members of the family has knocked at the
doors of this Court, in the subject petition and this Court
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
has granted an interim order of stay qua the petitioners.
Further investigation has not taken place on account of the
interim order so granted.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners would contend that the complaint does not
make out any offence against the petitioners, it is only
omnibus vague statements made in the complaint with
regard to certain allegations. He would submit that further
proceedings if permitted to continue would become the
abuse of process of the law.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to
contend that a crime is registered for cognizable offence
and the Police have started to conduct the investigation.
The investigation should be permitted to be continued and
the proceedings should not be quashed. It is for the
petitioners to come out clean in the trial. Therefore, he
would submit that the petition be dismissed.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
7. The learned HCGP would toe the lines of the
learned counsel for 2nd respondent complainant.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective counsel and have
perused the material on record.
9. The relationship between the parties, is as afore
quoted. The allegations against the petitioners are a
sprinkling few in the complaint which would not become
any ingredients of offence under Section 498A of IPC, inter
alia qua the petitioners. Since the entire issue has now
sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice
the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:
"£Á£ÀÄ ©Ã©DAiÉÄõÁ PÉÆÃA eÁQgÀºÀĸÉãÀ ¸ÀÄAPÀzÀ ªÀAiÀiÁ: 25
ªÀµÀð eÁw: ªÀÄĹèÃA GzÉÆåÃUÀ: ªÀÄ£ÉPÉ®¸À ¸Á: w¼ÀªÀ½î vÁ: ºÁ£ÀUÀ®è
ªÉÆ.£ÀA:8792820900 mÉÊ¥ï ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆqÀĪÀ zÀÆgÀÄ K£ÉAzÀgÉ,
£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è UÀAqÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ
ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£É ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎ f¯Éè ¸ÁUÀgÀ
±ÀºÀgÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß qÀAzÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24-12-2017 gÀAzÀÄ w¼ÀªÀ½î
UÁæªÀÄzÀ eÁQgÀºÀĸÉãÀ vÀAzÉ £ÀfÃgÀºÀäzÀ ¸ÀÄAPÀzÀ FvÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉ
ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ CAvÀ 12 vÉÆ¯É §AUÁgÀ, ¥sÀæqïÓ, ¨ÁAqÉ
¸ÁªÀiÁ£ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §mÉÖ, PÉÊUÀrAiÀiÁgÀPÉÌ CAvÀ gÀÆ. 20,000-
00UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÁUÀgÀzÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÉà ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ
6 ®PÀë gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
£À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ CPÀÌ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CPÀÌ vÀAVAiÀÄgÀÄ
CªÀgÀ UÀAqÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£ÀªÀÄä zÁA¥ÀvÀåzÀ°è M§â UÀAqÀ ªÀÄUÀ ºÀÄnÖzÀÄÝ CªÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ dĺÉÃgÀ
¸ÀÄAPÀzÀ ªÀAiÀiÁ:04 ªÀµÀð CAvÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸Àé®à
¢£ÀUÀ¼À ªÀgÉUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ ¸ÀÄRªÁV ¨Á¼Éé ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ
§A¢zÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄvÁÛ £À£ÀUÉ
¥Àæw¢ªÀ¸À ºÉÆr-§r ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DgÀA©ü¹zÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß qÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ
J£ÀÆß ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt ºÁUÀÆ PÁgÀÄ vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ ¦Ãr¸ÀÄvÁÛ §A¢vÀÄÛ
EvÀÄÛ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß qÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ PÁ®PÉÌ £À£ÀUÉ
PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ CAvÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ
ºÉÆrAiÀÄĪÀzÀÄ, ¨ÉÊAiÀÄĪÀzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢zÀÄÝ C®èzÉ CªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ £À£Àß
UÀAqÀ£À CPÀÌA¢gÁzÀ 2) SÉÊj¤ßøÁ PÉÆÃA ¸À«ÄêÀůÁè ºÁ£ÀUÀ®è CªÀgÀ
ªÀÄUÀ 3) ªÀÄw£ï 4) ±À©Ã£Á PÉÆÃA C©üÃzÀ¸Á§ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ, CªÀ¼À UÀAqÀ
5) C©ÃzÀ£Á§ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ, CªÀgÀ ªÀÅUÀ 6) ªÉÆû£À vÀAzÉ C©ÃzÀ¸Á§
zsÁgÀªÁqÀ, E£ÉÆߧâ CPÀÌ 7) d©Ã£Á vÀAzÉ £ÀfÃgÀºÀäzÀ ¸ÀÄAPÀzÀ ºÁUÀÆ 8)
¸À©ÃgÁ PÉÆÃA ¸ÉÆúɯï J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¤£ÀUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV CrUÉ
PÉ®¸À, ªÀÄ£ÉPÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §gÀĪÀ¢®è, ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä ¤£ÀUÉ
K£ÀÆ PÀ°¹®è CAvÀ ¥Àæw ¢ªÀ¸À £À£ÀUÉ ¤A¢¸ÀÄvÁÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
PÉÆqÀ ºÀwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄAiÀiÁðzÉUÉ CAfPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ
QgÀÄPÀļÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À»¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÉÝ£ÀÄ.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
EwÛvÀÛ¯ÁV £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀ£À CPÀÌA¢gÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ
£À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀĪÀģɬÄAzÀ E£ÀÆß ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ
¨Á, £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆ® Rjâ »rAiÀÄ®Ä ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzɬÄAzÀ 04 ®PÀë ºÀt
E¹zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á CAvÀ ¦Ãr¸ÀºÀwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. C®èzÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ CªÀjªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ
C£ÉÊwPÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ElÄÖPÉÆAr¢ÝAiÀiÁ, ¤£Àß ºÉÆmÉÖAiÀÄ°è ºÀÄnÖgÀĪÀ ªÀÄUÀÄ
£À£ÀßzÀ®è, AiÀiÁgÉÆà ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ºÀÄnÖzÀÄÝ CAvÀ ºÉý £À£Àß ²Ã®ªÀ£ÀÄß
±ÀAQ¹ ¥Àæw¢ªÀ¸À £À£ÀUÉ ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ºÁUÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ
vÀgÀ®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹zÁUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÀ¯ÁPï CAvÀ 03 ¨Áj ºÉý
¤£ÀUÉ vÀ¯ÁPï PÉÆnÖzÉÝÃ£É ¤£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ CAvÀ ºÉý PÉÊUÉ
¹PÀÌ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄR, ªÉÄÊ PÉÊUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥Àæw¢ªÀ¸À zÉÊ»PÀ
ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrºÀwÛzÀgÀÄ. ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÉÄÊ ªÉÄïÉ
ºÁQPÉÆArzÀÝ £À£Àß §AUÁgÀzÀ vÁ½ ¸ÀgÀ, ¨ÉAqÀªÁ¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, ZÉÊ£À¸ÀgÀ, 08
GAUÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À¤ßAzÀ PÀ¹zÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ. DUÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
vÁ¼À¯ÁgÀzÉ £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÉýzÁUÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ £ÀªÀÄä
vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ w¼ÀªÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ »jAiÀÄgÁzÀ
C§ÄÝ®gÀ»ªÀiÁ£À, ¸ÉÊAiÀÄåzÀ¸Á§ ¸ÀªÀ£ÀÆgÀ ºÁUÀÆ UÀ¥sÁgÀ vÀAzÉ gË¥sÀ¸Á§
ªÀÄÆr ºÁUÀÆ E£ÀÆß PÉ®ªÀÅ d£ÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ F M¼ÀUÁV 2-3
¨Áj ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ªÀiÁr £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ
§Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ »ÃA¹¸ÀĪÀzÀ£ÀÄß
ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÀÝgÀÄ. »ÃUÁV £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀzÀ°
¨ÉøÀgÀUÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ.
¢£ÁAPÀ : 10-10-2022 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À vÁ¬Ä
wÃjPÉÆArzÀÄÝ D ¢ªÀ¸À £Á£ÀÄ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉ C§Äݯïd¨ÁâgÀ vÀAzÉ ªÀĺÀäzÀ
E¸Áä¬Ä¯ï, £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬Ä ¸Á»gÁ¨Á£ÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä CfÓ UËvÀĤ߸Á, £ÀªÀÄä
CwÛUÉ ¸ÀÄ£ÉÊ£Á PÉÆÃA E¥sÁð£À ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄuÉÚUÉ CAvÀ w¼ÀªÀ½îUÉ
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
§A¢zÁÝUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ
£ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ E®èzÀªÀgÀÄ, £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃr CAvÀ ºÉý
£ÀªÀÄÆäA¢UÉ vÀAmÉ vÉUÉzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß CwÛUÉUÉ PÉÊ
UÀ½AzÀ ªÉÄÊ PÉÊ UÀ½UÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ UÁAiÀÄ¥ÉlÄÖUÉƽ¹zÀÄÝ DUÀ w¼ÀªÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ
PÉ®¸À »jAiÀÄgÀÄ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄĪÀzÀ£ÀÄß ©r¹zÀÄÝ DUÀ CªÀgÀ®è
¸ÉÃj E£ÉÆߪÉÄä £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÁ®Ä ElÖgÉ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß E¯Éèà ºÀÄUÀzÀÄ ©qÀÄvÉÛêÉ
CAvÀ fêÀzÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀÝgÀÄ. DUÀ £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ SÁ¸ÀV D¸ÀàvÉæUÀ¼À°è
G¥ÀZÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä HjUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÉݪÀÅ. EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÀÇ ¸ÀºÀ
£ÀªÀÄä vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä »gÀAiÀÄgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ
ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt
vÀAzÀgÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¨Á E®è¢zÀÝgÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¤£ÀUÉ eÁUÁ E¯Áè
CAvÀ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. »ÃUÁV F ¸ÀA§AzsÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ºÁUÀÆ
»gÀAiÀÄgÉÆA¢UÉ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ F ¢ªÀ¸À vÀqÀªÁV oÁuÉUÉ §AzÀÄ
zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆr §r ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ zÉÊ»PÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ
»A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, £À£Àß ²Ã®ªÀ£ÀÄß ±ÀAQ¹, £À£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ
E£ÀÆß ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ ¦Ãr¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä
«£ÀAw.
¸ÀÛ¼À : DqÀÆgÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ : 07-12-2022
vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹"
10. A perusal at the complaint would clearly
indicate that the only offence against these petitioners are
that they have insulted the complainant that she does not
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
know to cook and the parents of the complainant have not
taught her how to cook or does not know other household
chores and has not been taught those jobs by their
parents. The entire complaint is all against the accused
No.1 - husband. Demand of dowry is also alleged against
the husband, but on instigation of the parents is what is
said. These contents of the complaint in the considered
view of this court would not become ingredients of offence
under Section 498A of the IPC or any other offence that is
alleged in the crime. Though generally when a crime is
registered, it should be permitted to atleast be
investigated into, but what merits consideration in the
case at hand, at this juncture is the foundation itself being
absent in the complaint, there being no ingredient of any
offence in the complaint permitting further investigation to
continue, albeit the issue being at the stage of crime,
would become an abuse of the process of the law, and
would result in miscarriage of justice.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
11. In the circumstances, it becomes apposite to
refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar vs. State of Bihar reported in 2022
SCC Online SC 162 wherein the Apex Court has held as
follows:
"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 in-laws Appellants 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
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
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal
scores against the husband and his relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma
and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.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."
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this
court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr.5, 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
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
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 grand- fathers and grand-
mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad
for decades are arrested."
14. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of
Jharkhand & Anr. 6, 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
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
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."
15. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP &
Anr.7, 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 vs. 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
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and
set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with
which we entirely agree that:
"12. ....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."
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of
Telangana 8, 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."
17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous
instances expressed concern over the misuse
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
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.
18. 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
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
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 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.
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 in-laws
Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the
process of law.
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
21. 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."
12. In the light of the afore narrated facts and the
judgment of the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to
exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and
nip the impugned crime, in its bud insofar as it concerns
the petitioners. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The complaint and the FIR in Crime
No.177/2022 insofar as the petitioners -
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:8269
CRL.P No. 104254 of 2022
accused Nos.2 to 7 are concerned is
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Rsh/Ct:Bck
