Karnataka High Court

Sri. Siddaramu vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 June, 2023

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                  -1-
                                                        WP No. 12372 of 2022




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                              DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                             BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                           WRIT PETITION NO. 12372 OF 2022 (GM-RES)


                   BETWEEN:

                   1.     SRI SIDDARAMU
                          S/O SIDDAIAH
                          AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
                          RESIDING AT 4th CROSS
                          HANIYAMBADI ROAD
                          HOSAHALLI EXTENSION
                          MANDYA - 571 401.

                   2.     SMT.THAYAMMA
                          W/O SIDDARAMU
                          AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
                          RESIDING AT 4TH CROSS
                          HANIYAMBADI ROAD
Digitally signed by       HOSAHALLI EXTENSION
PADMAVATHI B K            MANDYA - 571 401.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA           3.    SRI MANU C.S.,
                          S/O SIDDARAMU
                          AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
                          RESIDING AT 4TH CROSS
                          HANIYAMBADI ROAD
                          HOSAHALLI EXTENSION
                          MANDYA - 571 401.

                   4.     SRI MADHU C.S.,
                          S/O SIDDARAMU
                               -2-
                                    WP No. 12372 of 2022




     AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
     RESIDING AT NO.102
     DWARAKANAGAR
     P.O.I , AFS, YELAHANKA
     BENGLURU - 560 063.

5.   SMT. SOWMYA
     W/O NAVEEN KUMAR G.N.,
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
     EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL)
     BELLARY THERMAL POWER STATION
     (BTPS), KARNATAKA POWER
     CORPORATION LIMITED, BELLARY.

     PERMANENT ADDRESS: I MAIN,
     BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT,
     7TH LINK,
     'VEERABADRESHWAR NIVAS' ,
     BELLARY.
                                           ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     THE SUB INSPECTOR
     KENGERI POLICE STATION
     KENGERI
     BENGALURU CITY - 560 060.

     REPRESENTED BY
     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

2.   SMT. M.SOWMYA
     W/O C.S MANU
                                -3-
                                        WP No. 12372 of 2022




       AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
       NO. 25/2, FIRST FLOOR
       NEAR JSS COLLEGE
       SWEET HOMES LAYOUT
       SRINIVASPURA
       BENGLAURU - 560 060.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-1;
    SRI PARAMESHWARAPPA C., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIME
NO.188/22 REGISTERED BY THE R-1 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC-506, 498A, 504 OF THE IPC ON THE
FILE OF 32ND ADL.CMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE VIDE ANNX-A AND B.


    THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

Petitioners are before this Court calling in question

registration of a crime in Crime No.188 of 2022 registered for

offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 498A of the

IPC.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri L.M. Chidanandayya,

appearing for petitioners, Smt Yashoda K.P., learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri

WP No. 12372 of 2022

Parameshwarappa C., learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2.

3. Before embarking upon consideration of the facts of

the case, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship

between the protagonists of the crime. The 2nd

respondent/complainant is the wife and the 3rd petitioner is

accused No.1. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is father-in-law,

petitioner No.2/accused No.5 is mother-in-law, petitioner

No.4/accused No.3 is the brother-in-law, petitioner

No.5/accused No.4 is the sister-in-law. The accused No.1 and

the complainant get married on 26-03-2014. The couple, from

the wedlock, have a child. After the marriage, the couple

stayed at Bengaluru. The parents i.e., accused Nos.2 and 5 are

residents of Mandya. The husband and the wife are both

employed, husband, in Oracle Financial Services Software

Limited and, the wife in Mphasis.

4. On 03-01-2017 it transpires that the 3rd

petitioner/husband travels to Japan and on 09-12-2017 the 2nd

respondent and the child joins the 3rd petitioner and stays up to

WP No. 12372 of 2022

21-09-2018. It is the allegation that abruptly the complainant

leaves the husband and comes back to India. Again in the year

2019, the husband travels back to Japan and comes back in the

year 2020. The relationship by then is said to have strained

and completely floundered in the year 2020. On 15-05-2022

the wife registers a complaint against the husband. The

complaint was making sprinkling allegations of torture, but the

emphasis was on the car the husband takes away without the

permission of the wife. The police appears to have summoned

the petitioners and then rendered a non-cognizable report

(NCR) on the said offences. Later, on 29-05-2022, the wife

registers a detailed complaint which becomes a crime in Crime

No.188 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 498A,

504 and 506 of the IPC. The registration of the crime is what

drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

5. This Court having entertained the petition grants an

interim order of stay of further investigation against the

petitioners. The interim order so granted is in subsistence even

as on date.

WP No. 12372 of 2022

6. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend with

vehemence that the allegations made by the wife against the

petitioners are all vague and omnibus. There are no

ingredients that would make them offences as alleged. He

would further contend that several lakhs of rupees are

transferred from the husband to the wife at intermittent

intervals between 2016-2020. Therefore, there was no

occasion for the husband to demand money from the hands of

the wife and the story that is twined in the complaint is

imaginary and he would seek quashment of the entire

proceedings.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent-wife would seek to contend that every incidence

narrated in the complaint is true. On 03-05-2022 all the

petitioners together have assaulted the complainant demanding

money. Therefore, it would meet the ingredients of the offence

under Section 498A of the IPC. He would seek dismissal of the

petition.

WP No. 12372 of 2022

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, as they are

a matter of record. The husband/3rd petitioner and the 2nd

respondent/complainant get married on 26-03-2014. The

couple are employed. The parents who are petitioners 1 and 2

are residents at Mandya. The couple stays at Bengaluru and

have intermittently, on their respective employment, traveled

to Japan and have come back. By the year 2020 after the

return of the husband from Japan, the relationship between the

two had completely strained. The straining of the relationship

leads the wife to register a complaint initially on certain

allegations. The complaint so registered on 15-05-2022 reads

as follows:

"UÉ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï gÀªÀjUÉ F¸ïÖ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï oÁuÉ ªÀÄAqÀå£ÀUÀgÀ.

EAzÀ:

¸ËªÀÄå JA.PÉÆÃA ªÀÄ£ÀÄ ¹.J¸ï.(8197515304) £ÀA.25/2, 1£ÉÃ ªÉÄÊ£ï ¹ÖÃmï ºÉÆÃªÀiïì ¯ÉÃOmï ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸À¥ÀÄgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

ªÉÆ.£ÀA.9742207400.

«µÀAiÀÄ:

F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ »ÃUÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ JAlÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ ªÀÄAqÀå £ÀUÀgÀ ºÉÆ¸ÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£ÀÄ.¹.J¸ï.gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ DgÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ M§â ªÀÄUÀ EgÀÄvÁÛ£É. ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ £À£ßÀ UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ ªÀÄ£ÀÄ.¹.J¸ï. £À£ÀUÉ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛ£É. F ¸ÁA¸ÁjPÀ ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀAvÀgÀ

WP No. 12372 of 2022

¸Àj¥Àr¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃªÉ. DzÀgÉ EªÁUÀ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀÄªÀ ºÉÊzÀgï UÁæAqï L/N PÉ.J.41 JA.r.2667 F ¸ÀzÀj PÁgÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄ£ÀÄ.¹.J¸ï. gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß PÉÃ¼ÀzÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £À£ÀUÉ NqÁqÀ®Ä vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ ZÀlÄªÀnPÉUÀ½UÉ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹zÀgÉ PÁj£À Dgï.¹ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ¼ÁzÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ CªÀgÀ §½ EgÀÄªÀ PÁgÀ£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆr¹PÉÆr JAzÀÄ PÉÃ½PÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÛÉÃ£É.

¸À»/-

¸ËªÀÄå"

The police appears to have recorded the statement of the

wife and the husband and render a non-cognizable report on

15-05-2022 itself. After about 2 weeks of the registration and

closure of the aforesaid complaint, the subject complaint,

second in line is registered which is in greater detail and a

complete improvement over the earlier one. The narration is

against the husband. The incidents that have happened

between the husband and the wife at Japan are quoted in

extensor, while sprinkling few allegations are made against

other members of the family. For making those sprinkling few

allegations, no foundation is laid, as the police or the other

members who are arraigned as accused never stayed with the

couple. This is an admitted fact.

9. The sister-in-law who has also arraigned as accused

No.4 in the proceedings is a resident of Bellary. Therefore, the

WP No. 12372 of 2022

2nd respondent/wife, for the grievance between her and her

husband appears to have dragged all the members of the

family without there being any rhyme or reason. The complaint

so registered on 29-05-2022 reads as follows:

" «µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ ªÀÄ£ÀÄ.¹J¸ï., ªÀiÁªÀ£ÁzÀ ¹zÀÝgÁªÀÄÄ, CvÉÛAiÀiÁzÀ vÁAiÀÄªÀÄä, ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À£ÁzÀ ªÀÄzsÀÄ.¹.J¸ï. £Á¢¤AiÀiÁzÀ ²æÃªÀÄw.¸ËªÀÄå.¹.J¸ï. £ÉÃgÀªÁV £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À, zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ºÀ¯Éè, DyðPÀªÁV MvÀÛqÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀªÁV ªÀÄAiÀiÁðzÉ vÉUÉ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀ®èzÉ £À£Àß C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀÄ¹ì£À ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÉÄÃ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ zËdð£ÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄªÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä zÀÆgÀÄ.

¸Áé«Ä,

ªÉÄÃ°£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ ¸ËªÀÄå.JA. DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä°è ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ zÀÆj£À ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄAqÀå £ÀUÀgÀ ºÉÆ¸ÀºÀ½î §qÁªÀuÉ, ºÀ¤AiÀÄA¨Ár gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ £Á®Ì£ÉÃ PÁæ¹£À ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ¹zÀÝgÁªÀÄÄgÀªÀgÀ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ ªÀÄÄ£ÀÄ.¹.J¸ï. ¸ÀAUÀqÀ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:26.03.2014 gÀAzÀÄ gÁªÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ f¯Éè ZÀ£Àß¥ÀlÖt vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ zÉÆqÀØ ªÀÄ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ZËqÉÃ±Àéj PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥ÀzÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀgÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð RaðlÄÖ ªÀÄ£ÀÄ.¹.J¸ï. PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄZÀÄÑªÀAvÉ ªÉÊ¨sÀªÀAiÀÄÄvÀªÁV £À£Àß£Àß £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ ªÀÄ£ÀÄ.¹.J¸ï.£À£Àß ¸ÀAUÀqÀ C£ÉÆåÃ£ÀåªÁV fÃªÀ£À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:26.12.2015 gÀAzÀÄ MAzÀÄ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ d£À£ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, 2017gÀ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¤«ÄvÀÛ d¥Á£ï zÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. ºÀ£ÉÆßAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄä zÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ §AzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®¸ÀAzÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-60 gÀ°è ºÉÆ¸ÀzÁV ¤«Äð¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÉÆAzÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ E§âgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj RjÃ¢¹ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀÄ£À: d¥Á£ï zÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀÄ ¸ÀAUÀqÀ £Á£ÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À eÉÆvÉ ºÉÆÃzÉ. d¥Á£ï zÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÀ ¢£À¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ C£ÁªÀ±ÀåPÀªÁV ¤A¢¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. C®èzÉ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀgÀÄ. ªÁgÀPÉÌ ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ ¢£ÀPÉÌ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À PÉÆqÀ®Ä DvÀ£À vÀAzÉ, CPÀÌ ºÁUÀÆ vÀªÀÄä J®ègÀÆ ºÉÃ½ ¥ÀgÉÆÃPÀëªÁV QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. CzÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£Àß Q«UÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï PÉÆlÄÖ PÉÃ½¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ, CªÀgÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ, ¸ÉÃªÀQAiÀÄAvÉ £ÀqÉ¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ºÉÆgÀ zÉÃ±ÀªÁzÀ PÁgÀt ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¢£ÀUÀ¼À°è vÀ£Àß vÀ¥Àà£ÀÄß ¸ÀjªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀîªÀgÉAzÀÄ £ÀA© »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝ J¯Áè jÃwAiÀÄ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸À»¹PÉÆArzÉÝ. £À£Àß CPÀÌ£À ¸Á«£À PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ 2018gÀ°è ¨sÁgÀvÀPÉÌ »AwgÀÄVzÉªÀÅ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ

- 10 -

WP No. 12372 of 2022

21.12.2019gÀAzÀÄ d¥Á£ï¤AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä zÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ §AzÀgÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄä zÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ RjÃ¢¹zÀÝ 25/2, ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃ ªÀÄÄRå gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ, ¹éÃmï ºÉÆÃªÀiïì ¯ÉÃOmï, eÉ.J¸ï.J¸ï.PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ ºÀwÛgÀ, PÉAUÉÃj ªÉÄÊ®¸ÀAzÀæ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560060 E°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©¹zÉªÀÅ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £ÀªÀÄä zÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DvÀ£À CPÀÌ ªÀÄAqÀå £ÀUÀgÀPÉÌ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß PÀgÉ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÝ ZÁrºÉÃ¼ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À PÉÆqÀ®Ä £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£ÁzÀ ¹zÀÝgÁªÀÄ, ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À£ÁzÀ ªÀÄzsÀÄ, CPÀÌ¼ÁzÀ ¸ËªÀÄå J®ègÀ ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÉÃ½PÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉaÑ£À »A¸É PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¥ÁægÀA©¹zÀgÀÄ. PÁgÀt £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ¤ªÀÈwÛ ¨É¤¦ümï ºÀt PÉÆr¸ÀÄ, ¥É£Àë£ï ºÀt PÉÆr¸ÀÄ, £À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝ ¸ÉÊmï - ªÀiÁj¹ ºÀt PÉÆr¸ÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV vÀÄA¨Á »A¸É PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ w½¹gÀ°®è PÁgÀt £À£Àß CPÀÌ£À CPÁ® ªÀÄgÀt¢AzÀ CªÀgÀÄ PÉÆgÀUÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:30.04.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 8 UÀAmÉUÉ F ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ ºÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀªÁV UÀ¯ÁmÉ ¥ÁægÀA©¹zÀgÀÄ.

£Á£ÀÄ M¥Àà¢zÁÝUÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ §rzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï ¥ÉÆÃ£ï QvÀÄÛPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß aPÀÌ ªÀÄUÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß DZÉUÉ ºÁQzÀ£ÀÄ. DvÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀ ºÉÆqÉvÀPÉÌ £À£Àß PÉÊAiÀÄ°è gÀPÀÛ UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼Á¢zÀÄÝªÀÅ. D PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¥ÉÆÃ¤AzÀ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁrzÉ. CªÀgÀÄ §AzÁUÀ E£ÀÄß ºÉaÑ£À UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀ®èzÉ £À£Àß£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°è ¤°è¹ PÉlÖ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÁV ºÉÃ¼ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß PÉÃ½ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ¤UÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉ¬Ä¹zÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:1/05/2022gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ §AzÀgÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV §Ä¢Ý ºÉÃ½ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆr JAzÀÄ ªÀiAqÀåPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ.

¢£ÁAPÀ:3.5.2022 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß £Á¢¤AiÀiÁzÀ ¸ËªÀÄå.¹.J¸ï. ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3 UÀAmÉUÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁªÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ CvÉÛ, UÀAqÀ ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À ¦¸ÀÄªÀiÁw£À°è «ÄÃnAUï ªÀiÁr £À£Àß §½ §AzÀÄ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄ PÀqÉ¬ÄAzÀ ºÀt vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á E®è¢zÀÝgÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¤£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ qÉÊªÀ¸ïð PÉÆqÀÄ JAzÀÄ CgÀZÁrzÀgÀÄ. CªÀgÀ ªÀiÁwUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀàA¢¸À¢zÁÝUÀ £À£Àß CvÉÛ ºÁUÀÆ £Á¢¤ ªÀÄ½î jÃw PÉÃ½¹PÉÆAqÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÆqÀÄwÛ®èªÉAzÀÄ KPÁKQ £À£Àß vÀ¯É dÄlÖ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ J¼ÉzÁr £À£Àß PÀ¥Á®PÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¨É¤ß£À ªÉÄÃ¯É UÀÄ¢Ý £À£ÀUÉ FUÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ«®è §¼Áîj¬ÄAzÀ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ «ZÁj¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É. E®è ¤£ÀUÉ ¤ªÀÄä C¥Àà£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ zsÀªÀÄQ ºÁQ ºÉÆÃzÀ¼ÀÄ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ UÉÆvÀÄÛ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À ¸ÀAUÀqÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁV K¼ÀÄ ªÀµÀðªÁVzÉ AiÀiÁªÀ PÀA¥ÉèÃmï PÉÆlÖgÀÆ PÉÆÃnð£À°è ¤®ÄèªÀÅ¢®è, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀÛgÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß K£ÀÆ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä DUÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀgÀÄ. C®èzÉ C¯ÉèÃ EzÀÝ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ, UÀAqÀ ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À CªÀgÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀ jÃwAiÀÄ°è PÉÃ¼À°®èªÉAzÀgÉ £ÁªÉ®è ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¹ÃªÉÄ JuÉÚ ºÁQ ¸ÀÄqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉAzÀÄ C¯ÉèÃ EzÀÝ MAzÀÄ JuÉÚ PÁå£À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹zÀgÀÄ. DzÀgÀÆ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ®zÀ vÀ£ÀPÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ PÉÆoÀrAiÀÄ°è ¨ÁV®£ÀÄß

- 11 -

WP No. 12372 of 2022

ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀjAzÀ gÀPÀëuÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÉ£ÀÄ. ¥Àæw ¨Áj £À£Àß £Á¢¤ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ¯É¯Áè AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ PÉlÖ LrAiÀiÁ ºÉÃ½PÉÆlÄÖ ºÉÆÃUÀÄwÛzÀÝ¼ÀÆ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁªÀÄÆ° JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀÄä£ÁVzÉÝ. DzÀgÉ gÁwæ 8 UÀAmÉUÉ J®ègÀÆ ¥ÀÄ£À: £À£Àß eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ K£À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ£ÁqÀ¢zÁÝUÀ «¥ÀjÃvÀªÁV C¸À¨Àås ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀ®èzÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À, ªÀiÁªÀ £Á£ÀÆ ºÉtÄÚ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¯ÉQÌ¸ÀzÉ PÁ®ÄUÀ½AzÀ MzÀÝgÀÄ, PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ PÀ¥Á®PÉÌ ¨É¤ßUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀgÀÄ. £À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁªÀ PÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß »¸ÀÄQ ¸Á¬Ä¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÀgÀÄ. £À£Àß aPÀÌ ªÀÄUÀ£ÀÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr C¼ÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ. CªÀgÀ PÀÆUÁl, DgÁl ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄªÀ D¨sÀðlPÉÌ ºÉzÀj CzÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¦à¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄî £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ PÉÆoÀrUÉ ºÉÆÃV ªÀÄvÉÛ ¨ÁV®Ä ºÁQPÉÆAqÀÄ gÀPÀëuÉ ªÀiÁqÀPÉÆAqÉ£ÀÄ. PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ £Á£ÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄUÉ «ZÁgÀ ªÀÄÄnÖ¹zÉ. DUÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï PÀAmÉÆæÃ¯ï gÀÆ«ÄUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä w½¹zÀgÀÄ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ÀjUÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°¸ÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆ½î JAzÀÄ §Ä¢Ý ºÉÃ½ £À£ÀUÀÆ zsÉÊAiÀÄð vÀÄA© ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. gÁwæ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 12 UÀAmÉUÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä, £À£Àß ¨sÁªÀ EªÀgÀ ¸ÉßÃ»vÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj¤AzÀ ªÀÄAqÀåzÀ ºÉÆ¸ÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ®Æ PÀÆqÀ ªÉÄÃ°£ÀªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ GzÉÝÃ±À ¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV 67 ªÀµÀðzÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹ dUÀ¼ÀªÁr, PÀÆUÁr, ¤A¢¹, ¸ÀÄ¦æÃA PÉÆÃlðUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ UÉÆvÀÄÛ. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁV K¼ÀÄ ªÀµÀðªÁVzÉ K£À£ÀÄß QvÀÄÛPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä DUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. £ÁªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅ¢®è DZÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ. ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV JAzÀÄ PÉÆ£ÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ gÁwæAiÀiÁzÀ PÁgÀt £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ£À eÉÆvÉ ªÀÄAqÀå £ÀUÀgÀzÀ eÉÆåÃw ¯ÁqÉÆÓÃAzÀgÀ°è gÀÆªÀÄ£ÀÄß ¨ÁrUÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ C°èAiÉÄÃ G½zÀÄPÉÆAqÉªÀÅ. ªÀiÁgÀ£ÉAiÀÄ ¢£À ¥ÉÆÃ°Ã¸ÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¤zÀðj¹zÉÝªÀÅ. DzÀgÉ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀzÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è zÀÄqÀÄPÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀªÉAzÀÄ CAzÉ ¸Àj ºÉÆÃUÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÉªÀÅ.

£À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÀÄ ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES SOFTWARE LIMITED PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ DvÀ¤UÉ ºÁ° ªÀµÀðPÉÌ gÀÆ.16,00,000/- ¸ÀA§¼À §gÀÄwÛgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ jmÉÊgïªÉÄAmï ©¤¦ümï, ¥É£Àë£ï, ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀUÉÆÃ¸ÀÌgÀ J®ègÀÆ D¸É¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ KPÉAzÀgÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀÌ½®è J¯Áè CªÀgÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß FUÀ¯ÉÃ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆqÀ° JAzÀÄ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀÄ¹ì£À ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À, zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀ¯Éè, ¥ÉmÉÆæÃ¯ï ¸ÀÄjzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ E®è¢zÀzÀgÉ PÀvÀÛ£ÉÃ PÀwÛj¹ ºÁPÀÄªÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ PÉÆ£ÉUÉ D¹qï ¸ÀÄjzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¸ÀÄªÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÉÄÃ £ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

C®èzÉ ºÁ°Ã £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÄÀ ä£ÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ E£ÀÆß ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁUÀÄªÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀ§AzÀgÉ

- 12 -

WP No. 12372 of 2022

AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ ªÉÄÃ°£À jÃwAiÀÄ°è PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÁV ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ SÁªÀAzÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ºÁUÀÆ DvÀ£À vÀAzÉ, vÁ¬Ä, vÀªÀÄä ºÁUÀÆ CPÀÌ £À£ÀUÉ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÀ¯Éè, DyðPÀ MvÁÛAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀªÁV ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ £À£ï C¥Áæ¥ÀÛ ªÀAiÀÄ¹ì£À ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É zËdð£ÀåªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄªÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ ªÀÄ£ÀÄ.¹.J¸ï. ªÀiÁªÀ£ÁzÀ ¹zÀÝgÁªÀÄÄ, ªÉÄÊzÀÄ£À£ÁzÀ ªÀÄzÀÄ ¹.J¸ï, £Á¢¤AiÀiÁzÀ ¸ËªÀÄå ¹.J¸ï «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄdgÀÄV¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀ®èzÉ £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÉÄÊ£Àgï ªÀÄUÀ£À ¥ÁætPÉÌ CªÀgÀÄUÀ½AzÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁUÀzÀAvÉ gÀPÀëuÉ PÉÆr¹. £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ PÉÆr¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É, ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀÄªÀ PÁgï £ÀA.KA41 MD2667 UÁæAqï i10 PÁgÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß C£ÀÄªÀÄw¬Ä®èzÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß PÁgÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ PÉÆr¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É."

A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate various

grievances or allegation of torture upon the complainant by the

husband. The allegations against other members of the family

are that they have instigated the husband to behave in such a

manner that would become ingredients of the offences and

therefore, those offences are laid against other members of the

family.

10. In the teeth of the aforesaid allegations or the

complaint, if further investigation is permitted to continue

against the parents and brother of the husband who live in

Mandya or the sister-in-law who lives in Bellary, it would

become an abuse of the process of the law and would run foul

- 13 -

WP No. 12372 of 2022

of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN

KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR

AND OTHERS1wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:

"Issue Involved

11. 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?

12. 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 as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2018) 10 SCC 472, has observed:-

2022 SCC OnLine SC 162

- 14 -

WP No. 12372 of 2022

"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 Act46 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."

14. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273), 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-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

- 15 -

WP No. 12372 of 2022

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."

15. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been observed:-

"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498AIPC 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 498Aas 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.

- 16 -

WP No. 12372 of 2022

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are 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."

16. In Geeta Mehrotra & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (2012) 10 SCC 741, it was observed:-

- 17 -

WP No. 12372 of 2022

"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. Raovs. 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 the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

"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."

17. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452, it was also observed that:-

"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial dispute sand dowry deaths. The

- 18 -

WP No. 12372 of 2022

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."

18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section498A 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.

19. 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 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 -

WP No. 12372 of 2022

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 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."