Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mohan Lal Dhiman vs State By Mysuru Women Police Station on 8 February, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3051 OF 2023
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2579 OF 2023
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2023
BETWEEN
DR. SEEMA BHUTANI
W/O DR. PAVAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/O NO.100 A, II FLOOR,
GAUTHAM NAGAR,
ADHAR NO. 502986584233
NEW DELHI - 110 049.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUDHARSHAN L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE BY MYSURU WOMEN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SHILPA SANJEEV
W/O SANJEEV DIMAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O NO.92, B ZONE,
2
J.P.NAGAR, 3RD STAGE,
KOPPALURU, MYSURU - 570 031.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. B. VENKATA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.17788/2022 AND IN
CR.NO.30/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 107, 114,
120B, 406, 425, 323, 504, 506, 509, 34 OF IPC ON THE
FILE OF MYSORE WOMEN POLICE STATION AND PENDING
ON THE FILE OF LEARNED XIII ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C AT MYSURU.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2579 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. MR. MOHAN LAL DHIMAN
S/O LATE SHRI GEETA RAM DHIMAN,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/O NO.358,
URBAN EAST, SECTOR 5,
ADHAR NO. 662092161262,
HARYANA - 136 118.
2. MRS. ANITA RANI DHIMAN
W/O MOHAN LAL DHIMAN,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O NO.358,
URBAN EAST, SECTOR 5,
ADHAR NO. 662092161262,
HARYANA - 136 118.
3. MRS. SUMAN DHIMAN
W/O MADAN LAL SHARMA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
3
R/O NO.1989-D,
ADHAR NO.559730314217
RAILWAY ROAD,
NARELA, NORTHWEST,
DELHI - 110 040.
4. MADAN LAL SHARMA
S/O JAI KISHAN DASS,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O NO. 737013454891
RAILWAY ROAD,
NARELA, NORTHWEST,
DELHI - 110 040.
5. MR. ASHOK DHIMAN
S/O MOHAN LAL DHIMAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/O NO.358,
URBAN EAST, SECTOR 5,
ADHAR NO994227275129,
KURUKSHETRA,
HARYANA - 136 118.
6. MRS. MONICA DHIMAN
W/O ASHOK DHIMAN,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/O NO.358,
URBAN EAST, SECTOR 5,
ADHAR NO. 529311921253,
KURUKSHETRA,
HARYANA - 136 118.
7. MRS. RENU VISHAL OJHA
W/O MR. VISHAL OJHA,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/O NO.326, C-BLOCK,
T.G.LAKE VISTA, 152/2,
SINGASANDRA, BEGUR ROAD,
4
BEGUR, NEAR LAGE POINT TOWER,
BEGURU,
ADHAR NO. 344666706357.
BENGALURU - 560 068.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SUDHARSHAN L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY MYSURU WOMEN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SHILPA SANJEEV
W/O SANJEEV DIMAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O NO.92, B ZONE,
J.P.NAGAR, 3RD STAGE,
KOPPALURU, MYSURU - 570 031.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. B. VENKATA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.17788/2022 AND IN CR.NO.30/2021 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 498A, 107, 114, 120B, 406, 425, 323, 504,
506, 509, R/W SEC.34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF MYSORE
WOMEN POLICE STATION AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF
XIII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.1.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.2570/2023 filed by the petitioners
accused Nos.2 to 8 and Criminal petition No.3051/2023 filed
by accused No.9 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing
the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.17788/2022 arising out
of crime No.30/2021 registered by Mysuru Women police
and charge sheeted for offence punishable under Section
498A, 107, 114, 120B, 406, 425, 323, 504, 506, 509 and 34
of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioners in both cases and learned counsel for respondent
No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the
complaint of respondent No.2, the police registered FIR. It
is alleged by her that she has married accused No.1-
Sanjeev Dhiman on 14.02.2000. The complainant has done
Bachelor of Engineering in Computer Science and worked in
U.K. The marriage of accused No.1 with respondent No.2
was love cum arranged marriage. Accused No.1 hails from
Haryana and prior to the marriage, there was demand of
dowry from the family of the accused and expected
expensive gifts such as silver items to their family, Kinetic
Honda vehicle, furniture, gold, etc. The parents-in-law were
unhappy with the marriage as they are North Indian, they
insulted respondent No.2. After the death of the mother of
accused No.1, the father of accused No.1 married another
woman having two daughters and there was displeasure in
the family of the accused. Since the accused No.1 loved the
complainant, her mother in law i.e. mother accused No.1
used to hurt and abuse her, prior to the marriage. Accused
No.1 was not very close to his family as his father was
dominating. A child was born out of the marriage of
accused No.1 and respondent No.2-complainant. Both of
them working in BOSCH company, India before the
marriage. Accused No.1 got job at UK. After the marriage,
her father-in-law took a separate account for expenses, he
wanted the complainant to transfer the money, but accused
No.1 refused it.
Whenever, the father-in-law taunt the complainant,
accused No.1 was supporting her.
4. The complainant further alleged that her sister-in-
law (accused No.4) used to criticize the complainant and her
parents. Despite taking the financial support, they needed
money for purchasing soap, shampoo, etc. Her brother-in-
law Ashok Dhiman (accused No.6) would compare with his
wife and criticise with cooking of the food. Around June
2006, her in-laws wanted to visit U.K., but she informed
that she is having first trimester and not in good health.
However, they booked ticket and came to U.K. Accused
No.1 took the in-laws for site seeing, where accused No.2
insisted her to sit in back seat and created nuisance. For 3-
4 months, she suffered with bad nausea and vomiting, but
accused No.1 made her to serve their in-laws. Accused
No.1 made mental torture. The complainant's mother also
visited U.K. to help the complainant and she stayed for two
weeks. The in-laws wanted male issue. They abused her
and accused No.1 supported their views. Whenever the
complainant visited India, there was quarrel. Accused
No.1's family expected gifts and her mother was serving the
in-laws. They abused her stating that they must know
cooking decent food. The in-laws were trying to damage
the relationship of complainant with her husband.
5. The complainant has further alleged that as per
her father's advise, she purchased 8 acres of land on
02.07.2007 in the joint family names. She has executed
GPA on 27.12.2007 in favour of her father-in-law to
safeguard the property. In 2008, the complainant found a
match for her sister in-laws Renu, who is accused NO.8.
The complainant spent Rs.5.00 lakhs. The complainant also
delivered a second child in 2012, there was pooja. The
sister-in-law Monica (accused No.7) visited U.K. brought
many gifts to her. The complainant is having two sons,
aged about 15 and 9 years, they were studying in U.K., but
now the children are studying in Mysuru due to desertion.
The mother of the complainant helped for purchasing the
property around Bengaluru.
6. The complainant further alleged that in November
2014, a U.K. based company offered three years for working
at Bangalore office. On 15th anniversary on 14.2.2015,
they celebrated the marriage anniversary. Her family
members came to Bangalore from Delhi. Accused No.7 is
staying at Kurukshetra and came to Bangalore and stayed
for three days. In 2016, accused No.8 got married and the
complainant parents visited Kurukshetra for attending
wedding. Accused No.1 spent lakhs of rupees. All the in-
laws were happy and due to sibling rivalry, accused No.8
stopped speaking with her parents for three years.
7. It is further alleged that in 2016, accused No.1
contacted her girl friend school mate in whats-app group,
'Hum Panch' where they were sharing photographs. The
female in the group used to call accused No.1 for lunch and
they also visited their bungalow. Subsequently, the
complainant observed in the whatsapp that they were
discussing porn pictures, models etc. Accused No.1
indulged in continuously chatting with them. The family of
One Nikhil visited on a trip and on objection, accused No.1
told he would leave the whatsapp group.
8. Around August-September 2017, the company
called the couple back to U.K. and accused NO.1 stated that
he is unwell and he is having some problem, therefore, he
wants to come to India to safeguard his health. In
September 2017, they went to U.K. and resigned the job,
Accused NO.1 told, he wanted medical leave, and they
searched the house at Bangalore or Mysuru. Accused No.1
introduced accused No.9-Seema Butani, who is a doctor, for
consultation and later, the behaviours of accused No.9
impressed the complainant to quit the job. Accused No.1
also convinced her to quit the job. Till November 2018, the
complainant lived with accused No.1 at Mysuru and went to
Delhi. Accused No.1 did not go to Delhi, but spent
time with accused No.9. Accused No.1 on the health
condition, resigned the job at U.K. and she has discussed
with the Manager in June 2018 which came to knowledge of
accused No.1 and the complainant agreed to return to India,
but accused No.1 insisted her to come alone. In July 2019,
accused No.1 came to India resigning the job. Later, he
used to meet accused No.9 and he also attended her
birthday. In July, when she was in U.K., she came to know
through mobile phone of accused No.1 that there was
picture of accused No.1 with accused No.9 in compromise
poses on the dates. Then, the complainant called accused
No.9, had conversation with her. August 2018. The
complainant confronted the air tickets and picture of
accused No.9 and she came to know that accused No.1 was
having continuous contact with accused No.9.
9. On 21.08.2018, accused No.1 transferred the
shares by executing GPA and the complainant trusted
accused No.1 and she asked to install the CCTV camera.
Even she called accused No.9 not to engage with her
husband, either through message or whats-app and accused
No.9 also agreed. But, later, the complainant realised that
accused No.1 used to visit India only to meet accused No.9.
Though accused No.9 attached with the noble profession,
she is having unethical relationship with accused No.1, the
act of accused No.9 is nothing but abatement.
10. In August 22, 2018, the complainant confronted
the conversation, at that time, accused No.1 assaulted her
physically and she took pills of large quantity and she was
admitted to the hospital. Then message sent to the police
and she gave statement against accused No.1. The police
investigated the matter, accused No.1 begged to withdraw
the complaint, and in order to protect him, the complainant
did not lodge any complaint to the police. After discharge,
she received a call from accused No.9, she felt guilty and
expressed that accused No.1 damaged her mental health.
Accused No.9 deceived the complainant and she asked
accused No.1 to come to Delhi. The complainant asked for
counselling but accused No.9 did not agree and, she has
threatened the complainant. Subsequently, accused No.1
absconded for 30 minutes, and he switched off the phone.
The complainant informed one Nikhil to advise accused No.1
and accused NO.9 and she also tried to speak with the
husband of accused No.9, where her husband told the
complainant that she should control her husband-accused
No.1. The relationship of accused No.1 with accused No.9
continued and never stopped. Accused No.1 physically
assaulted the complainant on the regular basis because of
accused No.9.
11. The complainant further alleged that in October
2018, during Deepavali, she visited kurukshetra to the
house of in-laws for advising accused No.1, but accused
No.1 was reluctant, and hence, he came back to Mysuru.
Accused No.1 delayed to travel to U.K. and he was playing
hide and seek in order to show that he was not having touch
with accused No.9, but she came to know that accused No.1
had conversation with accused No.9. The complainant and
accused No.1 booked tickets, but it was postponing. Even
when staying at U.K., accused No.1 told that she will walk
out from the house and go to Delhi. Hence, the complainant
contacted father in-law accused No.2 for advise. In spite of
the same, the behaviour of accused No.1 was not changed
and due to mental disturbance, the complainant was unable
to concentrate on the work and accused No.1 misbehaved
with her. Accused No.1 frequently contacting accused No.9
which has disturbed the life of the complainant. She also
requested the other accused persons, but they have not
helped her. Though the parents in-law advised accused
No.1, but it was only eye wash. Due to the negligence by
the family of the accused, she came back to Mysuru. She
told her friends Dr. Deepa and Shilpa, and they advised
accused No.1. The harassment of accused No.1 was
unbearable and accused No.1 did not help her during her
workload.
12. The complainant further alleged that she has
communicated to the family members of accused No.1
regarding extra marital affair. Subsequently, in March 2020,
due to Covid-19 lock down, she was suffering from the
temperature and body pain, but accused No.1 did not take
proper care. She also made a complaint to the U.K. Police.
They registered a complaint under the Domestic Violence
Act, including the marital affair. The police closed the
complaint at the request of the complainant. During the
phase, the mother-in-law and sister-in-law and wild
behaviour of accused No.1, she has came out from trauma.
In August/September 2020, accused No.1 got another job.
The parents of the complainant gone to visit U.K. after the
lock down, but accused No.1 postponed it. Accused No.1
had a detailed discussion with the complainant stating that
he would continue relationship with accused No.9, but she
did not agree. But in December 2020, accused No.1
travelled to Delhi and went to his in-laws house, she also
came to India to solve the episode of accused No.9.
Accused No.8 told that accused No.1 will not leave accused
No.9 and the complainant should compromise. For that, the
complainant refused it and then the complainant along with
accused No.1 went to Kurukshetra to meet accused No.2
and her mother in law. She informed everything to them.
Accused No.2 advised accused No.1 not to assault or harass
the complainant. Accused No.8 was protecting accused
No.1. After discussion with accused No.2, the complainant
made complaint to NGO or police against accused No.1.
During the discussion, accused No.2 informed that she
should forget accused No.9 in respect of whatsapp group.
13. It is further alleged that on the advise of the in-
laws, the complainant filed a complaint to the Hauz Khaz
station, where the house of accused No.9 is situated. The
family of the complainant went to the police station, DCP
office, ACP office, lawyer and NGO at Delhi. The police and
NGO during investigation, called accused No.9. Accused
No.1 became furious, in order to save accused No.9 from
the trouble. The mother in-law and sister in law Monica
(accused No.7). Accused No.1 promised his step mother to
give a commercial plot or building to the complainant for her
future, but the property has been purchased in the joint
name of complainant and sister in law. During that time,
the children visited in-laws house, they were not looked
after well.
14. She also requested accused No.2 to advise his
son, but he defended accused No.1. The NGO also spoke
bad about the complainant, she came to know that NGO
also playing wrong cards. Accused No.1 said to take the
kids to Mysuru and send them to U.K. to her sister's place,
until their legal works gets over in Delhi. Accused No.1 did
not take responsibilities as a father. Hence, forced her to
take the children to U.K. The in-laws restricted her meeting
with accused No.1. The accused persons told her not to
come to home and she should stay in a hotel, but she
refused to go to the hotel. Then her parents stayed in the
hotel and she stayed in the house of the in-laws. During the
night, accused No.1 was furious as the complainant and her
parents came to Kurukshetra and he told that she should
stop all the proceedings against him and accused No.9. He
told that he will destroy her by using his father's political
connection. The complainant told accused No.1 to stop illicit
relationship with accused No.9.
15. The complainant further alleged that her in-laws
made her feel so deceived, humiliated, insulted hurt by their
tricks. She further alleged that accused No.9 promising full
support on one side, has continued the relationship on the
another side. The family members of accused No.1 scolded
with abusive language in front of the NGO. The in-laws told
that she should compromise until accused No.1 comes out
from the relationship of accused No.9 and she refused the
proposal and she decided to stay at Mysuru or U.K.
16. She further alleged that her mother-in-law and
sister-in-law Monica (accused No.7) were supportive all
these months and they did not speak a word. When the
complainant went on street with the children, the accused
No.9 came and asked her to sit in the car. The complainant
went to the hotel where her parents stayed. Accused No.1
switched of his phone.
17. She further alleged that to add her to trauma, a
friend of the complainant's family assisted at Delhi with
police and getting threat calls. Then complainant should
withdraw the complaint against accused No.9 and should be
back to U.K. It is the master plan of accused No.9 who
gave phone number to one Rajath. Rajath approached
Noida police, but the police did not take the complaint.
Hence, she decided to go to Mysuru. The NGO people told
to advise accused No.1, when the complainant was admitted
in the hospital in ICU, the NGO advised accused No.1 to
give moral support. In July 2021, she requested accused
No.1 for financial help, but he refused. After the Covid-19
lock down, she came to Delhi and registered a complaint at
Hauz Khaz, police station. On 11.09.2021, accused No.1
told the complainant to withdraw the cases and misbehaved
with her. There was panchayat held at Kurukshetra and she
came to know that they will not support. Hence, she came
to Mysuru for lodging the complaint. The Mysuru police
further obtained information from the Hauz Khaz police.
18. The complainant has further alleged that, in
October 2021, accused No.1 filed complaint with
Kurukshetra police against the complainant. Later, she
explained to the police and then, the police registered FIR
against accused No.1 for misusing authority. Accused No.1
filed divorce case against her. In November 2021, the
complainant along with her maternal uncle, travelled to
Delhi to file a complaint to Hauz Khaz police, Delhi, but they
advised to file the complaint to Noida police. After filing the
divorce petition on 5.10.2022, accused No.1 and his family,
who were the co-owners of the property, sold the property.
Accused No.1 cancelled the GPA for selling the property.
Accused No.1 conspired with accused No.9 and in-laws
caused loss of property / business opportunities. Accused
No.1 and accused No.9 made the complainant to live
separately.
19. She has also alleged that the in-laws alleged that
the complainant was having mental disorder to help accused
No.1. She has further alleged that accused No.9 with her
crooked plan along with accused No.1 pushing the
complainant under depression and accused No.9 provoked
accused No.1 to fight with complainant and planning to
divorce her. Accused No.9 wanteds to continue to live with
her husband and illicit relationship with accused No.1.
20. The complainant has further alleged that the in-
laws forced her to accept the relationship of accused No.1
with accused No.9 and all the in-laws harassed her. Even
though they know the dispute, they sold the property.
Accused No.9 abetted accused No.1 for committing the
harassment. Hence, prayed for taking action against the
accused persons.
21. After registering the FIR, the police investigated
the matter and filed charge sheet, which is under challenge.
22. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
has contended that, on perusal of the entire contents of the
complaint, there is no allegation against any of the
petitioners in both cases. The entire allegation goes against
accused No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2.
There is an allegation against accused No.9 that she had
intimacy with accused No.1 and due to which accused No.1
mentally harassing the complainant. It is further
contended that there is no report of any dowry by the
petitioners. Accused No.1 and the complainant were residing
at U.K. and they never stayed in the house of the
petitioners. The marriage of accused No.1 with respondent
No.2-complainant was held in the year 2000 and the
complaint was filed after 21 years of marriage. Accused
No.1 is having two male children. Accused No.1 is not
before the Court. There is omnibus allegation against the
petitioners and there is no specific allegation against the
petitioners accused Nos.2 to 8.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioners further
argued that the previously, the police filed a charge sheet
against accused No.1 alone offence punishable under
Sections 498A, 506 and 504 of IPC. Subsequently, further
investigation was ordered after 9 months of the charge
sheet. The present petitioners were falsely implicated in the
additional charge sheet filed on 12.1.2023 by adding various
other offences, which are not attracted. He further
contended that the complainant colluded with the family
members and with her influence, added these petitioners.
24. The learned counsel contended that most of the
allegations are against accused No.1 when they stayed at
England, Mysuru and Bangalore, whereas accused Nos.2 to
8 were staying at Kurukshetra in Haryana State. Therefore,
absolutely, there is no material to frame charge against the
petitioner accused Nos.2 to 8. In fact, they have supported
the complainant as per the averments made in the
complaint. Therefore, the proceedings against the accused
persons are abuse of process of law and liable to be
quashed.
25. The learned counsel would further contend that
the allegation against accused No.9 is that she is the
childhood friend of accused No.1, they came in contact in
whatsapp group and they chatted through whatsapp. That
itself, is not a ground to implicate for the offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 109 or 114 or IPC.
Accused No.9 is a practising doctor abd she has married a
person having children, leading happy marital life and she is
residing at Delhi. The complainant started harassing
accused No.9, went to Delhi created a seen in the hospital,
along with the police. Accused No.9 cannot be brought
under the provisions of Section 498A of IPC. Accused No.9
is not the in-laws of the complainant. Therefore, prayed for
quashing the charge sheet against the accused persons.
26. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
complainant filed statement of objections in both petitions
and seriously objected the petitions contending that because
of accused No.1, respondent No.2 undergone severe
trauma, admitted in Aishwarya hospital. The other accused
did not support her. There are call recordings in respect of
accused No.1 and accused No.9. Accused No.1 started
harassing the complainant due to extra marital relationship
between himself and accused No.9. The complainant
requested to stop the relationship, but they continued the
same. A complaint was lodged against the accused No.1
and he was sent to jail in abroad. Subsequently, she has
withdrawn the complaint against accused No.1. The other
accused joined with accused No.1 and prevented respondent
No.2 for taking action against accused No.1. The charge
sheet material reveals that harassment meted out to
respondent No.2 in the hands of accused No.1. The other
accused joining with accused No.1, fought against
respondent No.2. Accused No.1 planning to divorce the
respondent No.2. There is audio CD available in charge
sheet regarding conversation of accused No.1 and accused
No.9. The other accused did not help the complainant for
fighting against accused No.1. Accused Nos.1 and 9 hired
rowdy sheeters and gave threatening call to the complainant
for withdrawing the case against accused No.9. There was
panchayath held to stop harassing respondent No.2 and she
has complained regarding illicit intimacy of accused No.1
with accused No.9. The petitioners have provoked accused
No.1 to file a complaint against respondent No.2 at
Kurukshetra on 01.11.2021. The police also filed a
complaint against accused No.1 for the offence punishable
under Section 182 of IPC. Accused No.2 misused GPA
executed by respondent No.2. There are witnesses speaking
in respect of panchayath held in the presence of the elders.
It is further contended that there are documents to show
the accused persons involved in the crime. After recording
the further statement, the police added the other accused.
It is further contended that respondent No.2 requested
accused No.1 to discontinue illicit relationship with accused
No.9. but he is continuing. By denying the other averments
in the petition, the learned counsel prayed for dismissing the
petitions.
27. The learned counsel for respondent also
contended that there is averment made by the petitioners
for continuing the trial against them. Accused No.9
conspired with accused Nos.2 to 8 and cooperated for
accused No.1 for the commission of offence, they
threatened her. The accused persons instigated accused
No.1 for commission of offence. The statement of witnesses
reveals there is specific allegation against them. Hence,
prayed for dismissing the petitions.
28. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
perused the records.
29. On perusal of the first information statement of
respondent No.2-complainant, she has elaborately narrated
the story of life regarding the love marriage, birth of the
children, staying at Bengaluru, Mysuru and U.K. Till 2016,
there is no complaint against any of the accused persons
either for demand of dowry or harassment by the
petitioners. The trouble started only in the year 2016, when
accused No.1 contacted accused No.9 through whatsapp
group of their school mate in the name of 'Hum Panch',
where accused No.1 said to be shared the pornography
videos with the whatsapp group especially with accused
No.9. When the same was questioned, accused No.1 said to
be harassed respondent No.2. The entire allegations are
against accused No.1 with regard to visiting India from U.K.,
there was quarrel between the husband and wife. Accused
No.1 frequently visiting India to meet accused No.9 under
the guise of treatment. The further allegation is that the
telephonic conversation between accused No.1 and accused
No.9 triggered the family quarrel between the husband and
wife and therefore, the complainant approached accused
No.2, who is father-in-law and other accused, who are the
in-laws. They also supported respondent No.2. However,
subsequently, some of the accused said to be advised the
complainant to keep quite for some time and allow accused
No.1 to continue the relationship with accused No.9. Except
this allegation, nothing is mentioned in the entire complaint,
that accused Nos.2 to 8 in Criminal Petition No.2579/2023
have committed any physical or mental harassment or
demanded any dowry. Though there are some vague
allegations against the accused persons that a property was
purchased in the joint name of accused No.1 and the
complainant, and she has executed a GPA to look after the
property, but the said property has been sold by cancelling
the GPA. Except this allegation, no ingredients were made
out in the complain to attract Sections 498A, 506 and 504 of
IPC against accused Nos.2 to 8 in order to face the trial by
the petitioners. Respondent No.2 has already filed a civil
suit in respect of the property. Merely the petitioners not
supported the complainant on the subsequent event, though
they supported the complainant at the initial stage. That
itself, cannot be a ground to say that the petitioners were
involved in commission of the offence to try along with
accused No.1. Accused No.1 and respondent No.2 never
stayed in the house of accused No.2 at Kurukshetra. They
only visited some time and came back.
30. It is also seen from record that once the parents
of the complainant went to Kurukshetra, and the petitioners
requested to go and stay at hotel, but the complainant
stayed in the house of accused No.2 and that itself, is not a
ground to implicate the accused No.2 or his second wife in
the case. Though it is alleged that step mother of accused
No.1 or second wife of accused No.2 also assured to give
some property to the complainant, but not given this aspect
will also not attract Section 498A of IPC.
31. The provisions of Section 498A of IPC as under:
" Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects
such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
"cruelty means"--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental
or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or
any person related to her to meet such
demand."
32. On careful reading of the aforesaid provision,
Explanation to Section 498A of IPC, does not make out any
offence as against accused Nos.2 to 8. If at all, the
complainant is trying to commit suicide by taking sleeping
tablets, it is because of the quarrel between accused No.1
and herself. Therefore, accused No.1 requires to face the
trial. The petitioners have not at all stayed together with
accused No.1 and complainant during their marital life.
33. Considering the said aspect, the police have
rightly filed charge sheet against accused No.1 alone.
Subsequently, due to pressure of the complainant, the
police took up further investigation and just added accused
Nos.2 to 8 and accused No.9. Accused No.9 has filed a
separate petition and it will be discussed later. On perusal
of the entire record, absolutely, there is no material against
accused Nos.2 to 8 for proceeding with the trial. Therefore,
as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in KAHKASHAN
KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR
AND OTHERS reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 141,
accused Nos.2 to 8 have been falsely implicated in the
charge sheet on the pressure of respondent No.2-
complainant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Kahkashan Kausar has held as under:
41. Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section
498A - 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.
Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 498A -
Concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC -
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.
41. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed the FIR
against the accused persons in the above said case. Here,
in this case, it is a classic case of falsely implicating the
family members and other in order take revenge against
accused No.1 who is said to be having intimacy with
accused No.9. The entire complaint reads like
autobiography of the respondent No.2-complainant. She
has narrated the story, but there is no specific allegation
against the petitioners for having committed the physical
and mental harassment for demand of any dowry as per
Explanation (1) to Section 498A of IPC. The entire
grievance is against accused No.1-husband. It is simply
alleged that the petitioners abated accused No.1 for
harassment on the complainant, but in fact, they are all
advised accused No.1 and supported the complainant from
the beginning. Respondent No.2-complainant has also filed a
civil suit and a divorce case is also pending between accused
No.1 and respondent No.2. Therefore, the criminal
proceedings against the petitioners are not sustainable
under law.
34. As regards to the petition filed by accused No.9 in
criminal petition No.3051/2023, she is a practising doctor
and she is said to be having husband, and she has been
implicated as accused No.9 in the case. As per the
complaint, after 2016, accused No.1 formed whatsapp group
with the school class mates and contacted accused No.9 and
they said to be continued having illicit intimacy between
them. They said to be taken photographs together and
conversation between them, which was questioned by the
complainant, the quarrel started. Accused No.1 said to be
reluctant in discontinuing the relationship with accused
No.9 and in spite of making complaint to the various
persons, accused No.9 and accused No.1 continued their
relationship which was named by respondent No.2 as illicit
intimacy between accused No.1 and accused No.9.
Therefore, it is stated in the complaint that accused No.9
abating accused No.1 for harassing the complainant under
Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, it is contended by learned
counsel for respondent No.2 that Sections 109 or 114 of IPC
read with Section 498A of IPC attracts accused No.9.
35. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended that accused No.9 is a doctor having good
practice and reputation in the society. Because of some
photographs accused No.9 with accused No.1 was found in
the group, that itself will not constitute the offence under
Section 498A of IPC or any other offences.
36. On careful reading of the allegation made by the
complainant against accused No.9, it is nothing but accused
No.1 and accused No.9 having illicit intimacy between them.
Though she has stated that they are in compromise
position, but no proper allegation is made in the complaint.
Merely a photograph showing accused No.1 with accused
No.9 since they are school friends and they are in the
whatsapp group, that itself is not a ground that accused
No.9 has abated accused No.1 for commuting the offence or
harassing the complainant to attract Section 498A read with
Section 109 or 114 of IPC.
37. Even if it is considered that the relationship of
accused No.1 and accused No.9 is adultery, which is
punishable under Section 497 of IPC, the Constitution Bench
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of JOSEPH
SHINE Vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2019)3 SCC
39, has struck down the provision of Section 497 of IPC as
violative of Articles 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution of
India. The judgment of the Constitution Bench of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that the adultery is
not an offence punishable under the IPC and it may be used
for civil cases seeking remedy in the matrimonial cases.
38. Apart from that, as per Section 198 of Cr.P.C.
even for the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC,
the police cannot file charge sheet, and the complainant
requires to file complaint to the Magistrate. Sub-section (2)
of Section 198 of Cr.P.C. read as under:
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an
offence punishable under Chapter XX of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), except
upon a complaint made by some person
aggrieved by the offence:
PROVIDED that-
(a) where such person is under the age of
eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is
from sickness or infirmity unable to make a
complaint, or is a woman who, according to the
local customs and manners, ought not to be
compelled to appear in public, some other
person may, with the leave of the court, make a
complaint on his or her behalf;
(b) where such person is the husband and
he is serving in any of the Armed Forces
of the Union under conditions which are
certified by his Commanding Officer as
precluding him from obtaining leave of
absence to enable him to make a
complaint in person, some other person
authorised by the husband in accordance
with the provisions of sub-section (4) may
make a complaint on his behalf;
(c) where the person aggrieved by an
offence punishable under ¹[section 494 or
section 495] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45
of 1860) is the wife, complaint may be made on
her behalf by her father, mother, brother,
sister, son or daughter or by her father's or
mother's brother or sister [or, with the leave of
the court, by any other person related to her by
blood, marriage or adoption].
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1),
no person other than the husband of the
woman shall be deemed to be aggrieved by any
offence punishable under section 497 or section
498 of the said Code:
PROVIDED that in the absence of the
husband, some person who had care of the
woman on his behalf at the time when such
offence was committed may, with the leave of
the court, make a complaint, on his behalf.
Sub-section (7) as under:
7) The provisions of this section apply to
the abetment of, or attempt to commit, offence
as they apply to the offence.
39. On careful reading of Sub-section (7) of Section
198 of Cr.P.C., it clearly bars filing the police complaint for
abatement or attempt to commit offences for Sections 494
or 495 of IPC before the police including Sections 109 or
114 or 511 of IPC. The allegation against accused No.9 is
nothing but adultery. The allegation also reveals that she
was abating accused No.1 for committing the offence under
Section 498A of IPC. Accused No.9 is not a family member
or in-laws in order to implicate under Section 498A of IPC
and left with only Section 109 or 114 of IPC, which is an
abatement or instigation for Section 497 or 494 of IPC,
which is bar for taking cognizance under Section 198 of
Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate. Therefore, proceeding against
accused No.9 cannot be sustainable for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of IPC or any other offences.
40. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
ANANT THANUR KARMUSE Vs. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA and others reported in (2023)5 SCC 802.
This case is pertaining to the CBI matter, where FIR has
been registered for various offences. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the said case is not applicable to
the case on hand. The learned counsel for respondent has
also relied upon the various judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and they are not applicable to the case on
hand. Since the quarrel is between accused No.1 and the
complainant, it is purely in respect of the complainant's
agitation against accused No.1, who is having affairs with
accused No.9. Therefore, I am of the view that the
arguments addressed by learned counsel for respondent
No.2 is not sustainable under the law.
41. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of
the case, absolutely, there is no material against the
petitioners No.1 to 8 for having committed any of the
offences or abatement of Section 498A of IPC as the
provision itself provides for the prosecution against the in-
laws or husband. As regards accused No.9, it is as already
held, the affairs between accused No.1 and accused No.9 is
nothing but adultery, therefore, criminal case cannot be filed
or FIR cannot be registered offence punishable under
Section 497 of IPC in view of judgment of the Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
42. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following
order:
Both the Criminal Petitions i.e. Criminal Petition
No.3051/2023 and Criminal Petition No.2579/2023 are
allowed. The Criminal proceedings against the petitioners
accused Nos.2 to 9 in C.C. No.17788/2022 arising out of
Crime No.30/2021 registered by Mysuru Women police, now
pending on the file of XIII Additional Civil Judge and
J.M.F.C., Mysuru, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Cs
CT:SK
