Karnataka High Court
Mayamma @ Ningamma vs State By Hd Kote Police on 12 January, 2023
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7331/2017
BETWEEN:
1. MAYAMMA @ NINGAMMA
W/O LATE NINGE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT HEGGANUR VILLAGE
H.D. KOTE TALUK,
MYSORE-571114.
2. YASHODA
W/O SHIVALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT GUNDATHUR VILLAGE
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSORE-571114.
3. MANJULA
W/O SHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
CHENNEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE
H.D. KOTTE TALUK
MYSORE-571114.
4. REKHA
W/O H.L. BYRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
HOSAMALA VILLAGE
H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSORE-571114.
2
5. MAHADEVA @ MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT HEGGANURU VILLAGE
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSORE-571121.
6. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT HEGGANUR VILLAGE
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSORE-571114.
7. RAVI
S/O PUTTEGOWDA
R/AT CHENNEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSORE-571114.
8. JAGADISHA
S/O SHIVALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
RESIDING AT GUNDATHUR VILLAGE
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSORE-571114.
9. RAJESHA (RAJESHA D N)
S/O NAGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOSATHORAVALLI VILLAGE
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSORE-571114.
10. BHYRAPPA H L
S/O LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOSAMALA VILLAGE
H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSORE-571114.
3
11. SHEKARA (SHEKAR B N)
S/O LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT CHENNEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE
H.D. KOTE TALUK
MYSOR-571114.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY H.D. KOTE POLICE
MYSORE, REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. MAMATHA KUMARI B V
W/O NINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
R/AT HOUSING BOARD COLONY
H.D. KOTE TALUK,
MYSORE-571114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1/STATE;
SRI JEEVAN J. NEERALGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
C.C.NO.440/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., H.D.KOTE, MYSURU ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.96/2016 OF H.D.KOTE POLICE, MYSURU BY ALLOWING THIS
PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
Petitioners are charge sheeted for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 498-A 323, 324, 341, 506 r/w section
149 of IPC alleging that the defacto-complainant is the legally
wedded wife of accused No.1, accused No.2 is the mother-in-
law, accused Nos.3 to 4 are the sister-in-laws and others are the
relatives of the accused No.1-husband, and the accused
subjected the defacto complainant to cruelty, both mentally and
physically, and also abused her in a filthy language and
assaulted her.
2. Cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate of the
aforesaid offences is impugned in this petition by accused Nos.2
to 12.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-
accused submits that except omnibus and general allegations,
there is no specific allegation as against the petitioners as to
how and in what manner each of the accused subjected the
respondent No.2 to cruelty both mentally and physically and also
assaulted her. He further submits that the cognizance taken by
the learned Magistrate only on the basis of the omnibus and
general allegations in the absence of any corroborative material
is impermissible in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Kahkashan Kausar -Vs- State of Bihar reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 162.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2 submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses
that the petitioners-accused herein along with accused No.1
have committed the aforesaid offence. The learned Magistrate
after considering the charge sheet material has rightly taken
cognizance of the same which does not warrant any
interference. He further submits that the various contentions
raised by the petitioners-accused can be considered only after
full fledged trial and at this stage, veracity of the said allegation
cannot be gone into and sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties.
6. Perusal of the FIR and also the charge sheet material
indicates that except omnibus and general allegations there is no
specific allegation as against each of the accused as to how and
in what manner they subjected respondent No.2 to cruelty both
mentally and physically and also assaulted her.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @
Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar1 at para No.18 has held
as follows:
"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."
8. In view of the same, the continuation of the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners-accused will be an abuse of
process of law, since the probability of conviction of the
petitioners-accused herein is remote and bleak in the absence of
any corroborative material as against the petitioners-accused.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.NO.440/2017 on
the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC H.D. Kote, Mysore in so
far it relates to petitioners-accused nos.2 to 12 is hereby
quashed.
iii) The learned Civil Judge shall proceed against the
accused No.1 without being influenced by this order on the
basis of the available evidence on record.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HR
