Karnataka High Court
Jayamma vs State By on 26 June, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23517
CRL.P No. 8259 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8259 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE CHIKKA HONNA SHETYY,
AGED 55 YEARS,
R/AT KAMEGOWDANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HANAGODU HOBLI, HUNASURU TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.
2. BASAVA SHETTY,
S/O KUNDURA SHETTY,
AGED 66 YEARS,
R/AT ABBURU, HONAGODU HOBLI,
HUNASURU TALUK, MYSORE DIST - 571 105.
3. VEERABADRASHETTY,
S/O LATE KUNDURA SHETTY,
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA AGED 53 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT ABBURU, HONAGODU HOBLI,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HUNASURU TLAUK, MYSORE DIST - 571 105.
4. G.K. GANGADHARA,
S/O KARIYAPPA,
AGED 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.5, PAIPLAINE,
ROAD UMAR BAG BADAVANE,
SARAKKI GAT, J.P NAGAR 1ST PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MADHU E.K, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23517
CRL.P No. 8259 of 2023
AND:
1. STATE BY MYSORE WOMEN POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SMT. ANNAPURAN D.M,
W/O LOKESH K.C,
AGED 25 YEARS,
R/A NEW MARUTHY LAYOUT,
HUNASUR CITY, HUNASUR TALUK,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. S.P.P FOR R1;
R2 - SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
IN ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.341/2023 (CR.NO.55/2022)
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.498-A, 504, 114 R/W SEC. 3, 4, 6 OF DP
ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUNSUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for offenses
punishable under Sections 498(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. They have approached this Court challenging the
prosecution. Respondent No. 2 lodged the First Information Report
(FIR) stating that she is the legally wedded wife of accused No.1.
Accused No. 2 is her mother-in-law, accused No.3 is the uncle and
paternal uncle of accused No.1, and accused No.4 is a friend of
NC: 2024:KHC:23517
accused No.1. She alleges that they subjected her to both mental
and physical cruelty and demanded money from her parental
home. The police, after investigation, submitted the Charge Sheet
for the aforementioned offenses. The petitioners have filed this
petition taking exception to the charges.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that,
except for omnibus and general allegations, there are no specific
allegations against each of the petitioners regarding how and in
what manner they subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty
and demanded money from her parental home. Therefore,
prosecuting the petitioners solely on the basis of such general
allegations, in the absence of specific overt acts, is impermissible.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State
submits that the allegations made in the complaint and the Charge
Sheet materials disclose the commission of the offenses alleged
against the petitioners. The veracity of these allegations can only
be determined after a full-fledged trial and should not be examined
in this petition. Therefore, he sought the dismissal of the petition.
4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Additional SPP for the respondent State
have been considered. Respondent No.2, the de facto
complainant, although served with notice, is not present either
personally or through her counsel.
NC: 2024:KHC:23517
5. A perusal of the First Information Report and the
Charge Sheet materials indicates that accused No.2, the mother-in-
law, was residing separately. It is alleged that at the time of the
incident, she was staying in the matrimonial home. Accused No.3 is
the paternal uncle of accused No.1, and accused No.4 is a friend of
accused No.1, who does not fall under the definition of a relative.
Except for general and omnibus allegations, there are no specific
overt acts mentioned as to how and in what manner each of the
petitioners subjected the de facto complainant to cruelty and
demanded money from her parental home.
6. The Supreme Court, in the case of Kahkashan Kausar
@ Sonam and Others vs. State of Bihar, at paragraph No. 18, held
as follows:
"18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A
IPC and the increased tendency of implicating
relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes,
without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial
on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further
manifest from the said judgments that false implication
by way of general omnibus allegations made in the
course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would
result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this
court by way of its judgments has warned the courts
from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of
the husband when no prima facie case is made out
against them."
NC: 2024:KHC:23517
7. In view of the above, the continuation of the Criminal
proceedings against the petitioner's herein would be an abuse of
the process of law.
8. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned proceedings in CC.No.341/2023
on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
stands quashed;
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM
