Karnataka High Court

Mr Manja Naik H vs State By Subramanya Pura Police Station on 4 June, 2024

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC:19164
                                                      CRL.P No. 6782 of 2022




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                             DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

                                             BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6782 OF 2022
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.    MR. MANJA NAIK H.,
                         AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
                         S/O HEMLANAIK O. SEVALAL
                         R/AT C/O VEENA
                         NO.9, 13TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
                         AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI
                         BENGALURU - 560 079.

                   2.    SMT. VEENA
                         W/O MR.VERUPAKSHA T.K.,
                         AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
                         D/O HEMLANAIK O. SEVALAL
                         RESIDING AT NO.9, 13TH CROSS
                         2ND MAIN, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI              BENGALURU - 560 079.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA          3.    MR.VERUPAKSHA T.K.,
                         S/O KERIYANAYAK
                         AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
                         RESIDING AT NO.9, 13TH CROSS
                         2ND MAIN, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI
                         BENGALURU - 560 079.
                                                              ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SRI MANJUNATHA G., ADVOCATE)
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2024:KHC:19164
                                       CRL.P No. 6782 of 2022




AND:

1.   STATE BY
     SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION
     BENGALURU.

2.   MRS.Y. KAVYASHREE
     W/O MANJU NAIK H.,
     D/O YUVARAJ
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
     R/AT NO.53, LAHARI ENCLAVE SF-202
     2ND FLOOR, SIMHADRI LAYOUT
     UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD
     BALAJI NAGAR
     BENGALURU - 560 061.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHI, HCGP FOR R-1;
    SRI SANDEEP KATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR NO.183/2022
REGISTERED BY R1-SUBRAMANYAPURA P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3 AND 4
OF D.P. ACT IN CR.NO.183/2022, PENDING BEFORE THE II
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGLAURU, PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE
ABOVE CRL.P BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY ALLOWING
THE PRESENT PETITION.

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

                            ORDER

The petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 3 call in

question registration of a crime in Crime No.183 of 2022 for the

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

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

Section 34 of the IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act, 1961.

2. Heard Sri Manjunatha G, learned counsel appearing for

petitioners, Sri Harish Ganapathi, learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and

Sri Sandeep Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2.

3. The relationship between the parties to the lis are as

follows:

The 2nd respondent is the complainant, the wife of 1st

petitioner/accused No.1. The 2nd petitioner/accused No.2 is the

sister-in-law of the complainant. The 3rd petitioner is the

husband of the 2nd petitioner/sister-in-law of the complainant.

The 1st petitioner and the complainant get married on

18-05-2017. After the marriage, the couple shift to Kenya

where accused No.1 was in employment. The wife then returns

back to India in the month of May 2022 on account of several

grievances between the two with regard to certain ailment of

the complainant/wife, which according to the husband was not

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

disclosed at the time of marriage. The resentment continues

and the relationship flounders. On floundering of the

relationship, the complainant registers a complaint on

16-06-2022 a week after the husband lands in India. The

registration of the complaint is what has driven these

petitioners to the Court in the subject petition, for it having

been filed on 14-07-2022. This Court had granted an interim

order of stay of further investigation. Therefore, further

proceedings in the subject crime has not taken place.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that there is no

allegation that would touch upon the ingredients of any of the

offences so alleged against the petitioners. It is his submission

that the couple were staying in Kenya and the ailment of the

wife was not made known to the 1st petitioner/husband despite

it being within the knowledge of her family members. Learned

counsel further contends that the 1st petitioner has spent huge

sums of money on the treatment of the wife which has gone in

vain and therefore have registered several proceedings

including recovery proceedings. Learned counsel would submit

that the 1st petitioner is not getting a job on account of the

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

pendency of the subject crime as he would require a police

clearance certificate. He would seek quashment of the

proceedings.

5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant

would further refute the submission contending that there are

specific allegations against all the three petitioners in the

complaint so registered on 16-06-2022. The complaint

narrates in minute detail the overt acts committed by the

petitioners. He would submit that it is a matter of further

investigation and a trial for the petitioners to come out clean.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would toe the

lines of the learned counsel for the complainant only insofar as

it concerns the husband and would submit that the allegations

against petitioners 2 and 3 are not specifically averred in the

complaint.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

8. The afore narrated facts are not in dispute. The

relationship between the parties are as narrated hereinabove.

Marriage between the two leads them to Kenya where the 1st

petitioner/husband was working. The couple spent 5 years in

Kenya after the marriage. During the period of stay in Kenya is

what forms the fulcrum of the complaint so registered by the

complainant, as the relationship between the two appears to

have turned sore in Kenya. Since the entire issue has now

sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the

complaint, it reads as follows:

"gÀªÀjUÉ,

¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï ¸ÀÄ§æªÀÄtå¥ÀÄgÀ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ïoÁuÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ

EAzÀ

PÁªÀå²æÃ PÉÆÃA ªÀÄAd£ÁAiÀÄÌ 31 ªÀµÀð, ªÁ¸À £ÀA.53 ®ºÀj J£ïPÉèÃªï, 2£ÉÃ ªÀÄºÀr ¹AºÁ¢æ ¯ÉÃOmï, ¨Á¯Áf£ÀUÀgÀ GvÀÛgÀºÀ½î ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ - 560 061.

ªÉÆ¨ÉÊ¯ï ¸ÀASÉå:9980816257, 9535460904

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: UÀAqÀ£ÁzÀ ªÀÄAd£ÁAiÀÄÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CPÀÌ «ÃuÁ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ¨sÁªÀ «gÀÆ¥ÁPÀë EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr vÀªÀgÀÄ

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÀgÀ®Ä MvÁÛ¬Ä¹ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤AzÀ¹ PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ.

£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä eÉÆvÉ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. £Á£ÀÄ ºÁ° AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. 2017£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è ªÀÄAd£ÁAiÀÄÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr M¦àUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄqÀ®QÌ ±Á¸ÀÛç ªÀiÁr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¢£ÁAPÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¹zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄAd£ÁAiÀÄÌ CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ «ÃuÁ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ¨sÁªÀ «gÀÆ¥ÁPÀë gÀªÀgÀ ¨ÉÃrPÉAiÀÄAvÉ 4 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt GAUÀÄgÀ, ZÉÊ£ï, ¨Áæ¸ï¯ÉÊmï J¯Áè ¸ÉÃj 80 UÁæA a£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀjUÉ 30 ¸Á«gÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß a£ÀßzÀ ¸ÀgÀ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV ¤Ãr ¢£ÁAPÀ: 18/05/2017 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä "¸Ë¨sÁUÀå PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAl¥À" ²ªÀªÉÆUÀÎzÀ°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 10,00000(®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä) ªÉÄÃ®àlÄÖ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03/06/2017 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄAd£ÁAiÀÄÌ gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß QÃ£Áå zÉÃ±ÀzÀ £ÉÊgÉÆÃ© £ÀUÀgÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀð C£ÉÆå£ÀåªÁVzÉÝªÀÅ. 2019£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì §A¢zÀÄÝ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CPÀÌ «ÃuÁgÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÀÄ DUÀ°®è ¤Ã£ÀÄ §AeÉ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä¤UÉ qÉÊªÉÇ¸ïð PÉÆqÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä¤UÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛ£ÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì QÃ£Áå zÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÉªÀÅ. £ÁªÀÅ QÃ£Áå zÉÃ±ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr DPÉUÉ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÀÄ DUÀÄªÀÅ¢®è DPÉUÉ qÉÊªÉÇ¸ïð JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. EzÀjAzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¥Àæw ¢£À ªÀÄzsÀå¥Á£À ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤ÃrwzÀÝgÀÄ.

EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À¢AzÀ ¨ÉÃ¸ÀvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ AiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃV PÀwÛ£À ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå GAmÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ C°è£À ªÉÊzÀågÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¨ÉÆÃqÁPïì EAeÉPÀë£ï ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ £À£Àß PÀwÛ£À £ÉÆÃªÀÅ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÉ DVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÊzÀågÀ ¸À®ºÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ AiÉÆÃUÁ¸À£À ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ PÀwÛ£À ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå G®âtªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉÆÃ«qï - 19 EgÀÄ »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¨sÁgÀvÀPÉÌ §gÀ®Ä DUÀ°®è. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11/04/2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°èzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ aQvÉìAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîwÛzÉÝÃ£É. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉUÉ ªÀÄÄAZÉ PÀ¤ßAUïºÁåA gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ §gÀÄªÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ªÀ¸Àw ²PÀët ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À ¸ÀAWÀzÀ°è C¹¸ÉÖAmï EAf¤AiÀÄgï (¹«¯ï) DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÉÝ£ÀÄ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆÃUÀåªÁVzÉÝ£ÀÄ. ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀºÀ 2 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ªÀgÉUÉ DgÉÆÃUÀåªÁVzÉÝ£ÀÄ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ ¨sÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÀÄ DUÀ°®èªÉA§ MAzÉÃ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ±ÀÄgÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. EzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV PÀÄVÎzÀÄÝ. DUÀ £À£ÀUÉ DgÉÆÃUÀå ¸ÀªÀÄ¸Éå ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀªÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÊzÀågÀ §½ ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ ¤ªÀÄUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ vÉÆAzÀgÉ E®è ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

£Á£ÀÄ QÃ£ÁåzÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è EzÀÝ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ ¨sÁªÀ£ÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÃ½PÉÆlÖAvÉ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£É PÉ®¸ÀzÀªÀ¼ÀAvÉ ¥ÀjUÀtÂ¹ £À£Àß ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀåPÉÌ PÉÆoÀrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr £À£ÀUÉ PÉ®ªÀÅ ¨sÁj ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV Hl wArAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÁ PÉÆqÀzÉ

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹ vÀÄZÀÒªÁV £ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09/03/2022 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ, ¨sÁªÀ ºÉÃ½PÉÆlÖAvÉ ªÀÄzsÀågÁwæ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 03 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr §®ªÀAvÀªÁV qÉÊªÉÇ¸ïð ¥ÉÃ¥ÀgïUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀ®èzÉ £À£ÀUÉ PÀwÛ£À vÉÆAzÀgÉ EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß PÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß PÉÊ¬ÄAzÀÄ »¸ÀÄQ E£ÀÆß ºÉaÑ£À vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr £À£Àß PÀwÛ£À vÉÆAzÀgÉ ºÉZÁÑUÀ®Æ PÁgÀtgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀjAzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr £À£Àß£ÀÄß ºÉzÀj¹ £À¤ßAzÀ "£Á£ÀÄ ºÀÄaÑ" JAzÀÄ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV §gÉ¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß gÀPÀÛ¢AzÀ "I LOVE YOU" JAzÀÄ §gÉ¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀ GzÉÝÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ F jÃw §gÉ¹PÉÆArvÁÛgÉÆÃ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ ¨sÁªÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ gÀÆ.10,00000/- ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ £À£ÀUÉ QÃ£Áå zÉÃ±ÀzÀ°è PÉÆr¹gÀÄªÀ aQvÉì ªÉZÀÑ gÀÆ.30,00000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. E®èªÁzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ E°èAiÉÄÃ ªÀÄÄV¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ DUÁUÉÎ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀÄwzÀÝ£ÀÄ.

EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¤ªÀÄä C¥Àà£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ DgÉÆÃUÀå ¸ÀÄzÁj¹PÉÆÃ, £Á£ÀÄ §AzÀÄ ¤£Àß£ÀÄß QÃ£ÁåPÉÌ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¨sÁgÀvÀPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÀ£ÀÄ.

EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06/06/2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09-06-2022 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 8:15 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß GzÉÝÃ²¹ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹ £À£ÀUÉ rªÉÇ¸ïð£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ½AzÀ PÉÆr¸ÀzÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ ¤ªÉÄä®ègÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É, E®èªÁzÀgÉ £Á£ÉÃ DvÀäºÀvÉåUÉ ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹ ¤ªÉÄä®ègÀ£ÀÄß eÉÊ°UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £Á£ÀÄ MAzÀÆªÀgÉ wAUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É gÀeÉUÉ §A¢zÉÝÃ£É. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä CPÀÌ ¨sÁªÀ MAzÀÄ ºÉtÄÚ £ÉÆÃrzÁÝgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁV QÃ£ÁåUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É EzÀPÉÌ ¤ÃªÀÅ CrØ ¥Àr¹zÀÝ°è ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÝ PÉÆ¯É PÉÃ¸À£ÀÄß ºÁQ¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ eÉÆÃgÁV PÀÆUÀPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄ£É¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÀqÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ. CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄªÀjUÀÆ EªÀ£À PÀÆUÁl PÉÃ½ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀÄÄAzÁzÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ªÀiÁwUÉ MA¢µÀÄÖ ¨É¯É PÉÆqÀzÉ ZÀ¥Àà°, ºÉ¯Éämï, ¤Ãj£À ¨Ál°AiÀÄ£ÀÄß C¯ÉèÃ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃzÀ£ÀÄ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀiÁzÀV¤AzÀ®Æ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÀÄ DV®èªÉAzÀÄ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß PÀwÛ£À ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåUÉ M¼ÀUÁzÁUÀ £À£Àß PÀwÛ£À ¸ÀªÀÄ¸ÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß G®âtªÁUÀ®Ä PÁgÀtªÁVzÁÝgÉ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CPÀÌ «ÃuÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÁªÀ «gÀÆ¥ÁPÀëgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÀÄ DUÀ°®èªÉA§ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ rªÉÇ¸ïð¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀAvÉ ®PÁëAvÀgÀ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ a£ÀßzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV gÀÆ.10,00000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀgÀÄªÀAvÉ MvÀÛ¬Ä¹gÀÄªÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄAd£ÁAiÀÄÌ, CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ «ÃuÁ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¨sÁªÀ «gÀÆ¥ÁPÀëgÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¹ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ PÉÆr¸À¨ÉPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É."

(sic)

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate all the

happenings between the years 2017 and 2022. For all the 5

years the couple have stayed at Kenya. Petitioners 2 and 3

who are the sister-in-law and her husband of the complainant

never went to Kenya or stayed with the couple at any point in

time. The narration in the complaint insofar as petitioners 2

and 3 are concerned are omnibus, vague and without there

being any material foundation to allege any of the acts which

would become offence under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506

of the IPC. The same does not go with the 1st

petitioner/husband. Against the husband there are pointed

references in the complaint to all the alleged harassment meted

out by the husband, which would require investigation in the

least. As the investigation itself is stalled in the case at hand,

I deem it appropriate to permit the investigation against the 1st

petitioner/husband to go on and leave open other remedies

available in law to the husband to avail at the appropriate stage

before the appropriate forum.

9. Insofar as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, though

the matter is at the stage of crime, there should be some

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

foundation in the complaint for this Court to continue further

investigation against petitioners 2 and 3. Finding no material

for any of the offences alleged against petitioners/accused

Nos.2 and 3 in the crime, permitting further proceedings to

continue would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS

VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in 2022 SCC

OnLine SC 162, wherein 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

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

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:-

"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

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

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 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

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

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.

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.

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

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:-

"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

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

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 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.

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

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.

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.

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

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."

(Emphasis supplied)

Therefore, the investigation or any further proceedings taken

up against petitioners 2 and 3 would stand obliterated, while it

is sustained against petitioner No.1.

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC:19164

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: