Karnataka High Court

Smt Nazeema W/O Shakeel Tashildar vs State Of Karnataka on 4 December, 2023

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                               -1-
                                                                      NC: 2023:KHC-D:14158
                                                                       CRL.P No. 103514 of 2022




                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                           DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

                                                             BEFORE

                                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103514 OF 2022

                                 BETWEEN:

                                 1.     SMT. NAZEEMA W/O SHAKEEL TASHILDAR,
                                        AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. HOSE HOLD,
                                        R/O. H.NO. 11, 7TH CROSS,
                                        UJWAL NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

                                 2.     SHRI. SHAKEEL S/O MADARSAB TASHILDAR,
                                        AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                                        R/O. H.NO. 11, 7TH CROSS,
                                        UJWAL NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

                                 3.     TAFSEEN S/O SHAKEEL TASHILDAR,
                                        AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                                        R/O. H.NO. 11, 7TH CROSS,
                                        UJWAL NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.

                                 4.     TOUEEB S/O SHAKEEL TASHILDAR,
                                        AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                                        R/O. H.NO. 11, 7TH CROSS,
              Digitally signed
              by
VIJAYALAKSHMI VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI    M KANKUPPI
                                        UJWAL NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590016.
              Date: 2023.12.11
              11:17:47 +0530
                                                                                  ... PETITIONERS
                                 (BY SRI. Z.M. HATTARKI &
                                  SRI. ARZOO M. MULLA, ADVOCATES)

                                 AND:

                                 1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                                        BY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
                                        BELAGAVI CITY,
                                        R/BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                                        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                        DHARWAD.

                                 2.     SMT. GULAFSHA W/O SUFIYAN TASHILDAR,
                                        AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
                             -2-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC-D:14158
                                    CRL.P No. 103514 of 2022




    R/O. H.NO. 492, RAGUNATHPET,
    ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590006.
                                              ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.
NO.897/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF IIND JMFC BELGAVI AND ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS
ARISING THERE FROM AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO. 2
TO 5, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

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

                          ORDER

This petition is filed seeking to quash of proceedings

in C.C No.897/2022 registered for offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of

Indian Penal Code pending on the file of the II JMFC,

Belagavi. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 5 in the said

criminal case.

2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned

counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14158

3. Respondent No.2 has filed first information, on

that basis case came to be registered in Crime No.86/2021

of Women Police Station Belagavi City for offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w

Section 34 of IPC. Petitioners are arrayed as accused

Nos.2 to 5 and husband of respondent No.2 has been

arrayed as accused No.1. The police after investigation

filed charge sheet against these petitioners and accused

No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,

504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. On the basis of the said

charge sheet case came to be registered in

C.C.No.897/2022 against these petitioners pending on the

file of the II JMFC, Belagavi. Petitioners have sought

quashing of proceedings of the said criminal case.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend

that on perusal of the complaint and charge sheet

materials, there is no specific allegation against these

petitioners and allegation against them is general and

omnibus allegation. As per acknowledgement dated

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14158

12.11.2021 issued by the Assistant Sub Inspector, Women

Police Station Belagavi City, respondent No.2 was sent out

from her husband's house 03 years ago and they are not

entertaining her in their house. In that regard she has filed

a requisition to the police to secure her husband and his

family members for enquiry. The said allegations made in

the complaint against petitioners are prior to 03 years of

filing of the complaint. The only allegation against these

petitioners is that they were supporting the husband of

respondent No.2. Learned counsel for petitioners has

placed reliance on the decision in the case of the

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others Vs State of

Bihar and Others1. With this, she prayed to allow the

petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for

respondent No.2 both submit that there are specific

allegations in the averments of the complaint and charge

(2022) 6 SCC 599

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14158

sheet witnesses have also stated regarding acts of these

petitioners in harassing respondent No.2. There are no

grounds for quashing of proceedings. With this, they

prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Having heard learned counsels for parties, this

Court has perused the charge sheet material and other

documents produced by the learned counsel for

petitioners.

7. The Assistant Sub-Inspector, Women Police

Station Belagavi City has given acknowledgment dated

12.11.2021 for having received requisition from

respondent No.2 for securing her husband and his family

members for enquiry. The endorsement dated 19.12.2021

issued by the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Women Police

Station Belagavi City indicate that respondent No.2 and

her husband and his family members were secured for

enquiry and they advised for settlement and there was no

settlement and case came to be registered in Crime

No.86/2021 of Women Police Station Belagavi City for

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14158

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506

r/w Section 34 of IPC. In the said acknowledgment dated

12.11.2021 there is mention of respondent No.2 has been

sent out from marital house 03 years ago and her husband

and his family members are not allowing her to enter their

house and harassing her. In the averments of the

complainant there is no mention when she was sent out of

house. In the averments of the complaint it is stated that

only for 2-3 months they looked after her well after her

marriage and thereafter harassed her. The marriage of

respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was love marriage

which has been taken place on 05.03.2019. Even though

there is allegation against petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for

forcing respondent No.2 to consume tablets and causing

abortion but that averment is given go by in her further

statement recorded on 12.12.2021. Even there is

averment in the complaint that petitioners were visiting

her parents house and harassing her, that is also given go

by in her further statement. The accusation against these

petitioners is when respondent No.2 was in the house of

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14158

her husband. As per application given to the police dated

12.12.2021, she was sent out of her husband's house 03

years prior to that application. In the complainant there

are allegations against petitioners that they used to come

to her parents house and asking her to give divorce. But

no specific date is mentioned of the said incident.

Allegations against these petitioners are general and

omnibus allegations. Even charge sheet witnesses are

parents and brother of respondent No.2 have only

reiterated what respondent No.2 has mentioned in her

complaint and further statement. The Hon'ble Apex Court

in the case of the Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and

others Vs State of Bihar and Others2 has observed as

under:

"13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar², 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-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of

(2022) 6 SCC 599

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14158

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 quite a number of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of the living abroad for decades are arrested."

16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana¹¹, 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-A 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."

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14158

The allegations made against these petitioners are

general and omnibus allegations. In the absence of any

specific role attributed to petitioners, it would be unjust if

the petitioners are forced to go through the tribulations of

a trial.

8. In view of the above, the proceedings against

petitioners are required to be quashed. In the result, the

following

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

The proceedings against these petitioners in