Karnataka High Court

Smt. Julekhabi W/O Miyajan ... vs State Of Karnataka on 17 November, 2023

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                             -1-
                                                                    NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375
                                                                     CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                         DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

                                                           BEFORE

                                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100312 OF 2023

                                 BETWEEN:

                                 1.   SMT. JULEKHABI W/O MIYAJAN INAMDAR
                                      AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
                                      R/O. #302, MARUTI GALLI,
                                      ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590006.

                                 2.   SMT. SHAHEEN W/O MOHAMMED ILIYAS QADRI,
                                      AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
                                      R/O. PLOT NO.14 ,SY. NO. 1013/A,
                                      7TH CROSS, NEW VEERBHADRA NAGAR,
                                      BELAGAVI-590016.

                                 3.   SMT. PARVEEN W/O SAYYED AFTAB AHMED QADRI,
                                      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
                                      R/O. #14, 7TH CROSS,
                                      NEW VEERBHADRA NAGAR,
                                      BELAGAVI-590016.

                                 4.   SMT. MUNSHERA W/O MOHAMMED ILIYAS PEERZADE,
              Digitally signed
              by
              VIJAYALAKSHMI
                                      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI
M KANKUPPI
              Date:
              2023.11.20
                                      R/O. H.NO. 873, ARALIKATTI DESHPANDE GALLI,
              11:49:19 +0530

                                      BELAGAVI-590001.

                                 5.   SMT. SHEHAZADI W/O SHANAWAZ INAMDAR,
                                      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
                                      R/O. WARD NO.44, CCB NO.1275,
                                      LABBUAJ MANZIL, SHAHU NAGAR,
                                      BELAGAVI-590010.

                                                                                ... PETITIONERS
                                 (BY SRI. Z.M. HATTARKI &
                                  SRI. ARZOO M. MULLA, ADVOCATES)
                              -2-
                                   NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375
                                     CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023




AND:

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

2.   SMT. NAJREENBANO W/O JAVEED QADRI INAMDAR,
     AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE HOLD,
     R/O. MARUTI GALLI, ANGOL,
     BELAGAVI-590006.
                                           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.982/2019
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC
WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II JMFC BELAGAVI AND ALL
OTHER    PROCEEDINGS   ARISING     THERE   FROM   AGAINST     THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 6.

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


                           ORDER

The petitioners have sought quashing of entire

proceedings in C.C.No.982/2019 registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read

with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred

as 'IPC' for brevity) pending on the file of JMFC-II Court,

Belagavi.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice,

respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented.

3. Respondent No.2 has filed First Information

before the Mahila Police Station, Belagavi and a case came

to be registered in Crime No.37/2019 for the offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with

Section 34 of IPC against these petitioners (Accused Nos.2

to 6) and another (accused No.1). Accused No.1 is the

husband, accused No.2 is the mother-in-law and accused

Nos.3 to 6 are the sisters-in-law of respondent No.2. The

police after investigation have filed charge-sheet against

accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. A

case came to be registered against the petitioners and

another in C.C.No.982/2019 for the aforesaid offences and

it is pending on the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi. The

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

petitioners (accused Nos.2 to 6) have sought quashing of

the proceedings of criminal case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

contend that respondent No.2 left the matrimonial house

on 14.12.2016 and residing in her husband's house. The

husband of respondent No.2 was residing at Dubai.

Respondent No.2 has not filed any complaint against the

accused persons immediately after she went to her

parents' house on 14.12.2016. The allegations against

these petitioners are only omnibus allegations. Petitioner

Nos.2 to 5 are married having children and they are

residing separately in the house of their respective

husbands'. There is no specific allegation against these

petitioners in the complaint. The allegation made in the

averments of the complaint and statement of complainant,

is against her husband and complaint came to be filed as

the husband of respondent No.2 has married another girl

on 11.06.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioners has

placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs

State of Bihar & Ors1. With this, he prayed to allow the

petition.

5. Per-contra, learned HCGP would contend that

on perusal of averments of the complaint, there is a

specific allegation against the petitioners for harassing

respondent No.2 and giving life threat to her. On perusal

of the charge-sheet material, there is prima-facie case

against the petitioners for the offences alleged against

them. There are no grounds for quashing of the criminal

proceedings against these petitioners. With this, he prayed

to dismiss the petition.

6. The marriage of respondent No.2 with accused

No.1 took place on 26.04.2012. After the marriage,

respondent No.2 went to her husband's house and after

one month of the marriage, it is alleged in the complaint

that her husband, mother-in-law and others started

assaulting her and did not give food to her properly and

2022 SCC Online 162.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

her husband went to Dubai without intimating her and he

used to come once in two years for a month and used to

harass her to bring the cash and jewelers. The family

members of husband of respondent No.2, abused her

stating that she is not begetting children and sent her to

the matrimonial house on 14.12.2016. It is further alleged

in the complaint that her husband and his family members

used to give life threat to her over phone and she lodged

the criminal proceedings and her husband did not appear

in the said case. It is further stated in the complaint that

on 11.06.2019 her husband after returning from Dubai,

married another girl. Thereafter, husband of complainant-

respondent No.2, his mother and sisters give life threat to

her. Inconsonance with the averments of the complaint,

the father, mother and elder sister of respondent No.2

have given their statements.

7. Admittedly, respondent No.2 is residing in her

father's house from 14.12.2016. Prior to that, the husband

of respondent No.2 went to Dubai and he used to come to

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

India once in two years. Even though it is alleged in the

complaint that there is abuse and assault on respondent

No.2 by her husband, mother-in-law and sister of her

husband, no complaint has been filed by her after she

went to her father's house on 14.12.2016. The other

allegation in the complaint is that the petitioners have

given life threat to her. No place, dated and time is

mentioned regarding the said incident. The said allegation

against these petitioners is only omnibus allegations.

Petitioner Nos.2 to 5 are married having children and they

are residing separately in the house of their respective

husbands.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors (supra) has

observed as under;

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,

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

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.

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

"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."

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

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13375 CRL.P No. 100312 of 2023

against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

9. The allegation against these petitioners is by

way of general omnibus allegation made in the course of

matrimonial dispute. Therefore, upon consideration of the

relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific

role attributed to the petitioners, it would be unjust if the

petitioners 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. In view of that above,

the proceedings against these petitioners in