Karnataka High Court
Noor Zahara vs State By Women Ps on 28 May, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
CRL.P No. 11473 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MAY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11473 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. NOOR ZAHARA
W/O GHOUSE SHARIFF
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT NO.3140, NEAR HUNSEMARA
K T STREET, MANDI MOHALLA
MYSORE CITY - 570001
2. BUSHRA
W/O KHASIM
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
R/AT NO.2514, 3RD CROSS
SULTAN PARK ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA
MYSORE CITY - 570001
Digitally signed 3. AZRA G S
by NAGAVENI D/O GHOUSE SHAREEF
Location: HIGH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
COURT OF R/AT NO.3140, NEAR HUNSEMARA
KARNATAKA K T STREET, MANDI MOHALLA
MYSORE CITY - 570001
4. KHASIM
S/O SHEIK AHMED
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT NO.2514, 3RD CROSS
SULTAN PARK ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA
MYSORE CITY -570001
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
CRL.P No. 11473 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE BY WOMEN PS
MYSORE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
OPPOSITE TO VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE -560001
2. RAHEEMA BAANU
W/O IMRAN SHARIEF
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT NO.208
17TH CROSS
BEHIND AHMADIYA MASJID
SHANTHINAGAR
MYSORE - 570 019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. B. LETHIF, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ANNEXURE-C i.e CHARGE SHEET DATED
14.03.2020 FILED IN CR.NO.2/2020 BY THE RESPONDENT P.S,
MYSURU WOMEN P.S., SAME IS PENDING AS C.C.NO.253/2020
BEFORE THE HONBLE VII ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C, AT MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A,506,34 OF
IPC AND U/S 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT WHEREIN THESE
PETITIONERS ARE ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.2 TO 5.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
CRL.P No. 11473 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
the proceedings in C.C.No.253/2020 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 506 read with Section 34
of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Mohammed Tahir,
appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP Sri.Harish
Ganapathi, for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel
Sri.B.Lethif, appearing for respondent No.2.
3. The facts in brief, germane are as follows:
Before noticing and considering the facts of the case,
I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the
parties. The second respondent is the complainant, the wife of
one Imran Sharief - accused No.1, who is not before the Court.
The first petitioner is mother in law - accused No.2 of the
second respondent, second and third petitioner is sisters-in-law
and the fourth petitioner is the husband of the second
petitioner.
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
The marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant
takes place on 19.08.2016. The relationship between the two
appears to have turned sour, which results in the wife
registering the subject complaint against all the members of
the family. The complaint results in registration of a crime in
Crime No.2/2020. The Police after investigation have filed a
charge sheet against the petitioners and accused No.1. Filing
of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this
Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
Sri.Mohammed Tahir would take this court through the
documents appended to petition with particular reference to
column No.17 - summary of the charge sheet to demonstrate
that there is no allegation against these petitioners which would
become ingredients of Section 498A or 506 of IPC. He would
submit that drawing up of all the other members of the family
into the web of crime would be a misuse and abuse of process
of law.
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
5. Learned counsel for the complainant would
vehemently refute the submissions to contend that there is
allegation against all the members of the family in the
complaint and also in the charge sheet. Since the charge sheet
is filed it is the submission that the petitioners have to come
out clean in the trial and this court would not interfere at this
stage of the proceedings.
6. This Court, at the time of the admission of the
matter had granted an interim order of stay on 30.01.2023,
qua these petitioners. Therefore, the trial against these
petitioners in stalled and the learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the trial against the husband is in progress. The
afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The factum of marriage
between accused No.1 and the complainant - second
respondent is a matter of record. The relationship between
them being floundered results in several proceedings one of
which is registration of complaint which becomes crime in
Crime No.2/2020. Since the entire issue has triggered from the
complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint.
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
" ೆ,
ಆರ ಕ ೕ ರು
ಮ ಾ ಆರ ಕ ಾ ೆ,
ೖಸೂರು
ಇಂದ,
ರ ೕ ಾ ಾನು 30.
ೋಂ. ಇ ಾ ಷ ೕ!
ಮ"ೆ ನಂ.208,
17"ೇ ಾ #,
ಮಹಮ%ೕಯ ಮ'ೕ% ಂ(ಾಗ,
*ಾಂ+ನಗರ, ೖಸೂರು.
ಾನ,-ೇ,
.ಷಯ : ನ ನ ಗಂಡ"ಾದ ಇ ಾ ಷ ೕ!, ಅ1ೆ23ಾದ ನೂ4ಜಹ-ಾ,
"ಾ% 3ಾದ 6ಾಜ-ಾ ಮತು2 ಬು9ಾ ಎಂಬುವವರು ನನ ೆ ವರದ< ೆ, ಾನ'ಕ, =ೈ ಕ
ಮತು2 >ೈಂ?ಕ @ರುಕುಳವನುB ೕC ಅDಾಚ, ಶಬGಗHಂದ ೈದು ಹ>ೆIಯನುB ಾC ೊ>ೆ
ೆದ ೆ 6ಾ@ರುವ ಬ ೆJ ದೂರು.
***********
"ಾನು ೕಲLಂಡ . ಾಸದMI DಾಸDಾ?ದುG, %"ಾಂಕ 19-08-2016 ರಂದು
ನನB ಗಂಡ"ಾದ ಇ ಾ ಷ ೕ! Nೊ1ೆಯMI ೖಸೂ ನ ಎ .ಆ4.
Oಹ>ಾIದMIರುವ *ಾM ಾ4 ಫಂ 6ಾQನMI ಮದುDೆ3ಾ?ದುG, ನನ ೆ ಒಂದು
6ೆಣುTಮಗು ಇರುತ2=ೆ. ಮದುDೆಯ ಸಂಧಭWದMI ವರದ< ೆ3ಾ? 2 ಉಂಗುರ, gÁåqÉÆÃ
DಾY, ರೂ. 70,000/- ಗಳ ಹಣ ಮತು2 ಒಂದು ಸಂZಾರ ೆL ೇ ಾಗುವ ಎ>ಾI
ವಸು2ಗಳನುB ವರದ< ೆ3ಾ? ನನB ಅ1ೆ2 ಮತು2 ಗಂಡ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು, ನನBನುB ಮದುDೆ
ಾC ೊಂCದುG, ಸು ಾರು 5 ಲ ಗಳವ-ೆ. ೆ ಹಣವನುB ಖಚುW ಾC ನನB
ಮ"ೆಯವರು ನನB ಮದುDೆ ಾCರು1ಾ2-ೆ.
.Dಾಹದ ಸಂಧಭWದMI ನನB ಗಂಡನು ಕಟ_ಡದ ಾಮ ಾ ಯನುB
(Construction work) ಾಡು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆಂದು ಸುಳ`a 6ೇH ನನBನುB ಮದುDೆ
ಾC ೊಂCದುG, "ಾನು ಎಂ.ಎ, b.ಎc .=ಾ,(ಾ,ಸವನುB ಾCದುG, ನನBನುB
ಮದುDೆ3ಾದ ನಂತರ ೆಲಸ ೆL ಕಳ` ಸು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆಂದು ನನB ಅ1ೆ2 ಮತು2 ಗಂಡ ಇಬdರೂ ಒef
ನನBನುB ಮದುDೆ ಾC ೊಂCದುG, ಮದುDೆ3ಾದ ನಂತರ ನನB ಗಂಡನ Nೊ1ೆ ಅವರ
ಮ"ೆಯMI gೕವ ನ\ೆಸು+2ದುG, ಆ ಮ"ೆಯMI ನನB ಗಂಡ, ಅ1ೆ2, ಾವ, ಅವರ ಇಬdರು
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
ತಂ?ಯರು ಇದುG, ನನB ಅ1ೆ2ಯವರು ಮದGನುB 1ೆ ೆಯುವ ೆಲಸವನುB ಾಡು+2ದುG,
ಆದ ಂದ Zಾಕಷು_ ಸಂhಾದ"ೆಯನುB ಾಡು+2ದುG, ಮದುDೆ3ಾದ ೆಲವi %ನಗಳವ-ೆ ೆ
ನನBನುB ಬಂದು jೆ"ಾB? "ೋC ೊಂCದುG, ತದನಂತರ ೕಲLಂಡವರು ನನB ತವರು
ಮ"ೆkಂದ 6ೆjಾl? ವರದ< ೆ ಹಣವನುB ತಂ%ರುವi%ಲIDೆಂತಲೂ, ೇ-ೆ ಹುಡು?ಯನುB
ಮದುDೆ ಾC ೊಂCದG-ೆ 6ೆmlನ ವರದ< ೆ 'ಗು+2ತು2 ಎಂದು ಗ>ಾnೆಯನುB
hಾ ರಂo'ದುG, ಅಲI=ೆ ಸಣTಪiಟ_ .jಾರಗH ೆ ಗ>ಾnೆಯನುB ಾಡು1ಾ2 ಇದುG, ನನBನುB
ೆಲಸಕೂL ಕಳ` ಸ=ೆ ಇದುG, ನಂತರ "ಾನು ಒಂದು 6ೆಣುTಮಗು. ೆ ಜನpವನುB
ೕCರು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆ.
ನನ ೆ 6ೆಣುT ಮಗು ಆkತು ಎಂದು ಮತು2 ಗಂಡು ಮಗು ಆಗMಲIDೆಂದು
ೕಲLಂಡವ-ೆಲIರೂ ಅಸ ಾqಾನ ೊಂಡು ಮಗುವನುB ಸಹ "ೋಡಲು ಬರ=ೆ ಇದುG, ನನB
ಗಂಡನು ಸು ಾರು 3 +ಂಗಳವ-ೆ. ೆ ನನ ೆ 6ೆಣುT ಮಗು ಹುr_=ೆ ಎಂದು ಮಗುವನುB
"ೋಡಲು ಸಹ ಾರ=ೆ ನನB ಮತು2 ಮಗು.ನ sೕಗtೇಮವನುB ಸಹ .jಾ ಸ=ೆ ಇದುG,
ನಂತರ ನನBನುB ಮತು2 ಮಗುವನುB ಗಂಡನ ಮ"ೆ ೆ ಕ-ೆದು ೊಂಡು 6ೋ? ಎಂದು
ೇಳ>ಾ?, 6ೆಣುT ಮಗು ಹುr_ರುವiದ ಂದ ನB 1ಾkಯವ ಂದ ಒಂದು ಲ ಹಣವನುB
1ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದ-ೆ ಾತ Zೇ ಸು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆಂದು 6ೇHದುG, ನಮp ಬH ಅ9ೊ_ಂದು ಹಣ
ಇಲIDೆಂಬು=ಾ? 6ೇH ಾC ೇC. ತದನಂತರ ನನನುB ಅವರ ಮ"ೆ ೆ ಕ-ೆದು ೊಂಡು
6ೋ?ರು1ಾ2-ೆ.
ಅವರ ಮ"ೆ ೆ ಕ-ೆದು ೊಂಡು 6ೋದನಂತರ ನನB ಮಗು. ೆ ಾಲು ಸ kಲI
ಎಂಬು=ಾ? ಮಗು.ನ ಾM ೆ ನನB ಗಂಡ ಮತು2 ಅ1ೆ2ಯವರು ಬnೆ_ಯನುB ಕಟು_+2ದುG,
ಅಲI=ೆ ನನB ಮಗು.ನ ಾM ೆ ನನB ಅ1ೆ2 ಾ,ಂಡQ 6ಾ@ ಸುಡು+2ದುG, ಅದನುB "ಾನು
ೇಳಲು 6ೋ=ಾಗ ನನB ಅ1ೆ2, ಗಂಡ ಮತು2 "ಾ% ಯರಗ>ೆಲIರೂ Zೇ ಚಪfMkಂದ
ಕhಾಲ ೆL ಮತು2 ೖ ೈ ೆ 6ೊ\ೆದು ಗ>ಾnೆಯು ಾCದುG, ಆ ಸಂದಭWದMI "ಾನು
ಮಗುವನುB @ತು2 ೊಂಡು ಮ"ೆkಂದ 6ೊರ ೆ ಬರಲು ಪ ಯ+B'=ಾಗ, ೕಲLಂಡ ನನB
ಅ1ೆ2 ಮತು2 "ಾ% ಯರು ನನB ಕತ2ನುB ಸು@ ೊ>ೆ ಾಡಲು ಪ ಯ+B'ದುG. "ಾನು
ಅವ ಂದ ತef' ೊಂಡು ರೂuನMI Zೇ ೊಂCದುG, ನನB ಗಂಡನು ಈ ಮಗು. ಂದ>ೇ
ಇ9ೆ_>ಾI ಗ>ಾnೆಗ ಾಗು+2ರುವiದು, ಈ ಮಗು ಬದು@ರ>ೇ ಾರದು ಎಂಬು=ಾ? 6ೇಳ`1ಾ2
ಮ"ೆಯ ೕMಂದ ಎ+26ಾಕು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆಂದು ಎ+2 ೊಂಡು 6ೋಗು+2=ಾGಗ, ಅಕLಪಕLದವರು
ಬಂದು ಆತ ೆ ೈದು ಮಗುವನುB ನನ ೆ ೊC'ರು1ಾ2-ೆ.
ನನB ಗಂಡನು ೆಲಸ ೆL 6ೋಗ=ೆ, ಸಂhಾದ"ೆಯನುB ಾಡ=ೆ ಇರು+2ದುG, ಈ .jಾರ ೆL
"ಾನು ೇH=ಾಗ ನನB 1ಾk ಪ + %ನ Zಾ.-ಾರು ರೂhಾkಗಳನುB ಮದುG
1ೆ ೆಯುವiದ ಂದ ಸಂhಾದ"ೆಯನುB ಾಡು1ಾ2-ೆ. "ಾ"ೇ ೆ ೆಲಸ ೆL 6ೋಗM, ಏನು
ತಂ=ೆ 6ಾಕು1ೆ2ೕxೕ ಅದನುB +ದುG ೊಂಡು b%Gರು ಎಂದು ೈ%ರು1ಾ2-ೆ. ಅಲI=ೆ ನB
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
1ಾkಯ ಮ"ೆkಂದ ಹಣವನುB 1ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಾ ಎಂದು ಮತು2 ಆ ಹಣ%ಂದ ನB
ಮಗುವನುB Zಾಕ ೇಕು ಎಂದು ಗ>ಾnೆಯನುB ಾCದುG, ಅಲI=ೆ %"ಾಂಕ 27.02.2019
ರಂದು ಮಧ,-ಾ+ ಸು ಾರು 12.00 ಗಂnೆ ಸಮಯದMI ."ಾ ಾರಣ ನನB ಗಂಡ ನನB
Nೊ1ೆ ಗ>ಾnೆಯನುB ಾCದು , ಗ>ಾnೆಯ ಶಬGವನುB ೇH ನನB ಅ1ೆ2 ಮತು2 "ಾ%
ಇಬdರು ಬಂದು ನನBನುB Cದು ೊಂಡು 6ೊ\ೆ%ದುG ಅಲI=ೆ ನನB ಗಂಡನು ನನB ಕhಾಲ ೆL
6ೊ\ೆದು @.kಂದ ರಕ2ವನುB ಬ 'ದುG ಅಲI=ೆ ಎಲIರೂ Zೇ ನನB 1ಾkಯ ಮ"ೆkಂದ
ಒಂದು ಲ ರೂ ಹಣವನುB ತರ ೇ ೆಂತಲೂ ಇಲI%ದGMI ನBನುB ೊ>ೆ ಾಡು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆಂದು
ೆದ ೆಯನುB 6ಾ@ ಆ ಸಮಯದMI ಮ"ೆkಂದ 6ೊರ ೆ 6ಾ@ದುG ನಂತರ "ಾನು ನನB
1ಾkಯ ಮ"ೆ ೆ ಬಂ%ರು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆ.
ನಂತರ ಈಗ 4 +ಂಗಳ ಂ=ೆ ನಮp ಯರು ಮತು2 ಸಂಬಂyಕರು Zೇ ನನB ಅ1ೆ2,
ಗಂಡ ಮತು2 "ಾ% ಯ-ೆಲIರನುB Zೇ ' ಾತುಕ1ೆ ಾC=ಾಗ ನನB ಅ1ೆ2ಯವರು ೇ-ೆ
ಮ"ೆ ಾC ೊಂಡು ಇರ ೇ ೆಂತಲೂ, ಆ ಮ"ೆ ೆ ಅ\ಾz { ಹಣವನುB ಮತು2 ನನB
ಗಂಡ ೆ Dಾ,hಾರ ಾಡಲು 5 ಲ ಹಣವನುB 1ಾkಯ ಮ"ೆkಂದ 1ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು
ಬರುವಂ1ೆ ಒ1ಾ2ಯ ಾCದುG, ಇಲI%ದGMI ನನB ಗಂಡನನುB bಟು_bಡ ೇ ೆಂತಲೂ
ಆತ ೆ ೇ-ೆ ಮದುDೆ ಾಡು1ೆ2ೕDೆಂದು 6ೇHದುG, ಇದ ೆL "ಾವi ಒಪf=ೇ ಇದುGದ ಂದ
ಈವ-ೆ.ಗೂ ನನB ಗಂಡನು ಕ-ೆದು ೊಂಡು 6ೋಗ=ೆ "ಾನು ನನB 1ಾkಯ
ಮ"ೆಯMI|ೕ ಇರು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆ.
ಈ .jಾರದ ಬ ೆJ "ಾನು ೖಸೂ ನ ಮ ಾ ಆರ ಕ ಾ ೆಯMI ದೂರನುB
ೕCದುG ಸದ ಯವರು ನನBನುB ಕುಟುಂಬ ಸಲ6ಾ ೇಂದ ೆL ಕಳ` 'ದುG, ಆ ಸಮಯದMI
ನನB ಗಂಡ ೆಲವi -ಾಜ@ೕಯ ಮುಖಂಡರುಗಳನುB ಕ-ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಅದರMI
ಮುNಾuQ ಎಂಬುವವರು ಅವರ ಆ}ೕ'ನMI ಕುHತು ಬ ೆಹ ' ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು
+Hಸು1ೆ2ೕDೆಂದು 8 %ನದ ಾ>ಾವ ಾಶವನುB ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು 6ೋ?ದುG, ತದನಂತರ
ನನBನುB %"ಾಂಕ 12-12-2019 ರಂದು ಸು ಾರು ಸಂNೆ 7.00 ಗಂnೆ ಸಮಯದMI
ಮುNಾuQ ಎಂಬುವವರು ತಮp ಆ}ೕ' ೆ ಕ-ೆ'ದುG, ಆ ಸಮಯದMI ನನB ಗಂಡ, ಅ1ೆ2,
ಾವ ಮತು2 ಸು ಾರು ಆತನ 10-15 ಜನ ಹುಡುಗರು ಇದುG ಅMI ೆ "ಾನು ನನB ಇಬdರು
ತಮpಂ%ರು ಮತು2 ನನB 1ಾk 6ೋ?ದುG, ಆ ಸಂದಭWದMI ಅMIದGವ-ೆಲIರೂ ನಮ ೆ
ೆದ ೆಯನುB 6ಾಕು1ಾ2 ಅವರುಗಳ` 6ೇHದಂ1ೆ ೇಳ ೇಕು ಎಂದು 6ೇಳ`+2=ಾGಗ ನನB
ತಮp ಒಪfಲು ಾರ ೆ ಾC=ಾಗ ನನB ಗಂಡನು ಏ ಾಏ@ ನನB ತಮpನ ಕು+2 ೆಯನುB
ಸು@ Zಾkಸಲು ಪ ಯತB ಪr_ದುG, ಆ ಸಂದಭWದMI ಅMIದGವರು bC' ಆತ ೆ
ಸ ಾqಾನ ಾCದುG, ನಂತರ ನನB ಅ1ೆ2ಯು ನನB ಎ>ಾI ಒಡDೆಗಳನುB ಾ-ಾಟ ಾC
ಾC ೆ ಅಥDಾ (ೋಗ,ದ ಮ"ೆಯನುB ಾಡು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆಂತಲೂ ಸದ ಮ"ೆಯ ಪತ ವi ನನB
ಆ1ೆ2ಯ 6ೆಸ ನMI ಇರುತ2=ೆ ಎಂತಲೂI, ನನB ಗಂಡ ೆ ಏ"ಾದರೂ 1ೊಂದ-ೆ ಆದMI
ಅದ ೆL "ಾ"ೇ ಾರಣ ಎಂದು ಮುಚlH ೆ ಬ-ೆದು ೊಡ ೇ ೆಂತಲೂ, ಮ"ೆಯ ಎ>ಾI
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
Zಾ ಾನುಗಳನುB ನನB 1ಾk ಮತು2 ನನB ತಮpಂ%ರು 1ೆ ೆದು ೊಡ ೇಕು ಎಂತಲೂ
ಮತು2 ನನB ಗಂಡನು ಪ +%ನ ಮ"ೆಯ ಖmW ೆಂದು 100/- ರೂhಾkಯನB9ೆ_ೕ
ೊಡು1ಾ2"ೆಂತಲೂ ಾ@ ಹಣವನುB ನನB ತಮpಂ% ಂದ ಪ\ೆದು ೊಳa ೇಕು ಎಂತಲೂ,
ನನB ಗಂಡನು ఎ ಮ"ೆ ಾಡು1ಾ2"ೋ ಅMI Dಾಸ ಇರ ೇ ೆಂತಲೂ, ನನB ಅ1ೆ2ಯ
6ೆಸ ನMI 4 ಮ"ೆಗHದುG, ಆ ಮ"ೆಗಳನುB "ಾ"ಾಗMೕ ನನB ಮಗುDಾಗMೕ
ೇಳ ಾರ=ೆಂತಲೂ ಮತು2 Dಾರ ೆL ಒಂದು %ನ ಅಂದ-ೆ (ಾನುDಾರದ %ನ ಮqಾ,ಹB
1.00 ಗಂnೆ ೆ ನನBನುB ನನB 1ಾkಯ ಮ"ೆ ೆ ಕ-ೆದು ೊಂಡು 6ೋ? bಟು_, ಪiನಃ
ಒಂದು ಗಂnೆಯ ನಂತರ Dಾಪಸು{ ಬರ ೇಕು ಎಂಬು=ಾ? 6ೇHದುG, ಇದ ೆL "ಾವiಗಳ`
ಒಪf=ೇ ಇ=ಾGಗ ಅMIದGವ-ೆಲIರೂ Zೇ ನಮ ೆ ೆದ ೆಯನುB 6ಾ@ದುG, ಅಲI=ೆ
ಒef ೊಳa%ದGMI ನ pಲI ಗೂ ಒಂದು ಗ+ ಾ€ಸು1ೆ2ೕDೆಂದು ೆದ ೆಯನುB
6ಾ@ರು1ಾ2-ೆ. ಸದ ಯವರುಗ ೆಲIರೂ ನಮ ೆ ೆದ ೆಯನುB 6ಾಕು+2ದG ಂದ
6ೆದ ೊಂಡ "ಾವi 2 %ನಗಳ ಾ>ಾವ ಾಶವನುB ಪ\ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂ%ರು1ೆ2ೕDೆ.
ಆ ನಂತರ ನನB ಗಂಡ ಇ ಾ ಷ ೕ! ೆ ಕ-ೆದು ೇH=ಾಗ "ಾನು ೇ-ೆ ಮ"ೆ ಾC
ಇಡು+2ೕ ಎಂದು 8 %ನಗಳ ಾಲ ಅವ ಾಶ 1ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು 6ೋದ ಮ1ೆ2 ಬಂದು ಇನುB
ಮ"ೆ '@LಲI ಇನುB 8 %ನಗಳ ಾಲ ಸಮಯ ೇ ೆಂದು 1ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು 6ೋದ ಇ=ೇ
ೕ+ ಸುಮp"ೆ ಸಮಯ 1ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು 6ೋ? 6ೋ? 18-12-2019 ರಂದು
•Mೕ# ಇ {hೆಕ_4 ಕ-ೆದು ನನB ಗಂಡನನುB ೇH=ಾಗ ಈಗ ಕ-ೆದು ೊಂಡು
1ೋ ಸು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆ ಎಂದು 6ೋ? ರZೆ2ಯMI ಅDಾಚ, ಶಬGಗHಂದ ೈದು ಇ=ೇ ೕ+ ನ ೆ
ಆಟ ಆCಸು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆ 4 ಜನದ 6ೆಸರು ಎ!.ಐ.ಆ4 ಬ-ೆಸು=ೆG 1ೆ ೆZೋದು ನನ ೆ ೊತು2
ಎಂದು 6ೇHದರು. •Mೕಸ ಾದರೂ 6ೋ? 6ೇಳ` ಕuಷನ4 ಹ+2ರ ಆದು 6ೋ?
6ೇಳ` ನನಗೂ ೇ ಾದಷು_ -ಾಜ@ೕಯ ದವರು ಇ=ಾG-ೆ ಏ ಾ\ೊL+ೕಯ ಾ\ೊL
Bಂದ ಏನೂ ಾ\ೋ ಾಗಲI ಎಂದು 6ೇH ಪiನಃ •Mೕ# Zೆ_ೕಷ ೆ ಬಂದು
%"ಾಂಕ 31-12-2019 ರಂದು ೕಡಂ ಹ+2ರ 8 %ನಗಳ ಾ>ಾವ ಾಶ
1ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡನು.
ಆದ-ೆ %"ಾಂಕ 02-01-2020 ರಂದು =ೊಡƒವ-ೆಲI ಕುHತು ೊಂಡು ಾತ"ಾC=ಾಗ
ಯರ ಮುಂ=ೆ ಮದುDೆ ಮುಂjೆ"ೇ ೕನು ಗಭWhಾತ ಾC' ೊಂC%Gೕಯ ಎಂದು
ನನB ೕ>ೆ ಅಪDಾದ ಾC ಎಲIರ ಮುಂ=ೆನೂ ಅವ ಾನ ಾC=ಾG"ೆ. ಈ 6ೆಣುT ಮಗು
ಆ?-ೋದು ನನBದಲI C.ಎ .ಎ nೆ#_ ಾCಸು ಆ ೕ>ೆ "ೋ\ೋಣ ಮ"ೆ ಾC2ೕ
ನB ೕ>ೆ ನಂb ೆ"ೇ ಇಲI ಎಂದು ನನB ಗಂಡ 6ೇಳ`+2=ಾG"ೆ. ಆದG ಂದ ನನB "ಾ% ಯ
ಗಂಡ „ೕ# ಾC ನB ಗಂಡ ೆ ನB ೕ>ೆ ನಂb ೆ ಇಲIವಲI nೆ#_ ಾC'
•ೕ...W ತಂದು 1ೋ ಸು ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ 6ೇಳ`+2=ಾG-ೆ. ಮತು2 ನನB "ಾ% ಯ ಗಂಡ
ನನ ೆ „ೕ ಾC ನನB 6ೆಂಡ+ (ಬು9ಾ ) 6ೆಸರು 1ೆ ೆಸ ೇಕು ಇಲI%ದG-ೆ ನB ೕ>ೆ
ಇಲIದ ಸಲI=ೆ ಅಪDಾದ"ೆ 6ಾ@ "ಾನು ೇ# 6ಾಕು1ೆ2ೕ"ೆ ಎಂದು ೆದ '=ಾG-ೆ.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
ದಯ.ಟು_ 3ಾವi=ೇ ಾರಣಕೂL ಗಂಡ"ಾದ ಇ ಾ , ಅ1ೆ2 ನೂ4ಜಹ-ಾ,
"ಾ% ಯ-ಾದ ಬು*ಾ , ಅಜರ ಇವರ ೕ>ೆ ಎ!.ಐ.ಆ4 ಾಡುವi=ಾ?
ೋರು+2=ೆGೕ"ೆ. ದಯ.ಟು_ ಈ ೕಲLಂಡ .ಷಯ ೆL ಸಂಬಂy'ದಂ1ೆ ಪ †ೕಲ"ೆ ಾC
ನನ ೆ "ಾ,ಯ =ೊರ@' ೊಡ ೇ ೆಂದು ತಮpMI ಈ ಮೂಲಕ .ನಂ+' ೊಳ`a1ೆ2ೕ"ೆ.
ವಂದ"ೆಗ ೆ‡ ಂ% ೆ,
%"ಾಂಕ :04-01-2020
ಸˆಳ : ೆಂಗಳ‡ರು ಇಂ+ ತಮp .*ಾz'
Sd/-
(ರ ೕ ಾ ಾನು)"
7. The Police after investigation have filed a charge
sheet against all the accused. Summary of the charge sheet as
obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows:
" ªÉÆ.¸ÀA.02/2020 PÀ®A 498(J).506 gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3.4 r.¦. PÁAiÉÄÝ
=ೋ9ಾ-ೋಪ ಾ ಪತ ದ ಾಲಂ ನಂ.14 ರMI ನಮೂ%'ರುವ Zಾ<-1 † ೕಮ+
ರ ೕ ಾ ಾನು ರವರು ಮತು2 ಾಲಂ ನಂ-12 ನಮೂ%'ರುವ ಆ-ೋe-1 ಇ ಾ
ಷ ೕ! ರವರ ಮದುDೆಯು ಎರಡು ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ ಒef ೆಯ ೕ-ೆ ೆ ಶlಯDಾ?ದುG,
ಆ-ೋe-1,2,3,4 ಮತು2 5 ರವರ ೇC ೆಯಂ1ೆ %"ಾಂಕ:19.08.2016 ರಂದು Zಾ<-2
ರವರು ಆ-ೋe-1 ರವ ೆ ವರದ< ೆ3ಾ? 2 mನBದ ಉಂಗುರ, 70,000/- ರೂhಾk
ನಗದು ಹಣ ಮತು2 ಗೃ6ೋಪsೕ? ವಸು2ಗಳನುB ೕC ಮು'Iಂ ಸಂಪ =ಾಯದಂ1ೆ
ಯರ ಸಮ ಮ Zಾ<-1 ಮತು2 ಅ-ೋe-1 ರವರ ಮದುDೆಯನುB ಎ .ಆ4.Oಹ>ಾIದ
*ಾM ಾ4 ಫಂ 6ಾQನMI "ೆರDೇ 'ರು1ಾ2-ೆ.
ಮದುDೆ3ಾದ ನಂತರ Zಾ<-1 ರವರು ಮಂC OಹಲIದMIರುವ ಆ-ೋe-1
ರವರ ಮ"ೆಯMI ಆ-ೋe-1,2,3 ಮತು2 4 ರವರುಗ ೆ‡ ಂ% ೆ ಸzಲf %ನ
ಅ"ೊBೕನ,1ೆkಂದ DಾಸDಾ?ದುG, ನಂತರ %ನಗಳMI ಆ-ೋe-1,2,3 ಮತು2 4 ರವರು
Zೇ ೊಂಡು Zಾ<-1 ರವ ೆ ಮದುDೆ ಸಮಯದMI ಸ 3ಾ? ವರದ< ೆ ತರMಲIDೆಂದು
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
ೇ-ೆ ಹುಡು? "ೋC ಮದುDೆ3ಾ?ದG-ೆ 6ೆmlನ ವರದ< ೆ 'ಗು+2ತು2 ಎಂದು
ಾನ'ಕDಾ? @ರುಕುಳ ೊr_ದುG, Zಾ<-1 ರವ ೆ 6ೆಣುT ಮಗು ಜ 'ದG ಂದ ಗಂಡು
ಮಗುDಾಗMಲIDೆಂದು ಮಗುವನುB "ೋಡಲು 6ೋಗ=ೇ Zಾ<-1 ರವ ೆ ಮಗು.ನ
•ೕಷ ೆ ಾ? ತವರು ಮ"ೆkಂದ 1 ಲ ಹಣ 1ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬರ ೇ ೆಂದು @ರುಕುಳ
ೊr_ರು1ಾ2-ೆ. ನಂತರ ಆ-ೋe-1,2,3 ಮತು2 4 ರವರು Zೇ ೊಂಡು Zಾ<-1 ರವ ೆ
ತವರು ಮ"ೆkಂದ 6ೆmlನ - ವರದ< ೆ3ಾ? 1 ಲ ರೂhಾk ಹಣವನುB ತರ ೇ ೆಂದು
ೈದು, 6ೊ\ೆದು ಾನ'ಕDಾ? ಮತು2 =ೈ ಕDಾ? @ರುಕುಳ ೊಟು_ ಮ"ೆkಂದ 6ೊರ ೆ
6ಾ@ರು1ಾ2-ೆ. ನಂತರ Zಾ<-1,2,3 ಮತು2 4 ರವರು ಎ\ೆ ಆ-ೋe-1,2,3,4 ಮತು2 5
ರವ-ೊಂ% ೆ ಹಲDಾರು ಾ -ಾg ಸಂqಾನ ನ\ೆ'ದGರೂ ಕೂಡ - ಥ ಆ-ೋe-1,2,3,4
ಮತು2 5 ರವರು Zೇ ೊಂಡು Zಾ<-1 ರವ ೆ ಮಗು ಆ-ೋe-1 ರವರದGಲ.I C.ಎ .ಎ
ಾC' ೊಂಡು •ೕ...W 1ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು, ಆ-ೋe-1 ರವರು Dಾ,hಾರ ಾಡಲು
6ೆmlನ ವರದ< ೆ3ಾ? ತವರು ಮ"ೆkಂದ 5 ಲ ಹಣವನುB 1ೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದ-ೆ
ಮ"ೆ ೆ Zೇ ಸುವi=ಾ? 6ೇH ಆ-ೋe-1,2,3,4,5 ರವರುಗಳ` Zಾ<-1 ರವ ೆ ೈದು
6ೊ\ೆದು ಾನ'ಕDಾ? ಮತು2 =ೈ ಕDಾ? @ರುಕುಳ ೊr_ರುವiದು ಪ ಕರಣದ
ತ Œೆkಂದ 6ಾಗೂ Zಾ<=ಾರರ 6ೇH ೆಗHಂದ ದೃಢಪr_ರುತ2=ೆ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæ-1,2,3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A: 498(J), 506 gÉ.«.34
L¦¹ 6ಾಗೂ ಕಲಂ 3 ಮತು2 4 C.e. ಾ|G ೕ1ಾ, ಮತು2 ಆ-ೋe-5 ರವರ .ರುದŽ
498(ಎ) ಐe' ಮತು2 4 Ce ಾ|G ೕ1ಾ, =ೋ9ಾ-ೋಪ ಾ ಪತ ವನುB ಸMI'=ೆ."
8. A perusal at the charge sheet would clearly indicate
that there are only omnibus allegation against these petitioners
who is relationship with the second respondent - complainant,
is as narrated hereinabove. The allegations in the complaint or
in the charge sheet is completely goaded against the husband
accused No.1, who is not appearing before the Court. Finding
no allegation that would tough upon the ingredients of Section
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
498A of IPC, permitting further proceedings against these
petitioners 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 1.
"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.
2022 SCC Online SC 162
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh
Sharma v. State of U.P. [(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 Act
46 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 v. State of Bihar [(2014) 8 SCC
273], it was also observed:--
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
"4. There is a phenomenal increase in
matrimonial disputes in recent years. The
institution of marriage is greatly revered in this
country. Section 498-A IPC 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-A IPC 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 grandfathers and grand-mothers of the
husbands, their sisters living abroad for
decades are arrested."
15. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand
[(2010) 7 SCC 667], it has also been observed:--
"32. It is a matter of common experience
that most of these complaints under section
498A IPC 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
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
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 498A as 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
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
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 v. State of UP [(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. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad 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
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
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:--
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
"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 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
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
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.
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-
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
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)
9. In the light of the unequivocal facts hereinabove
and also the finding and the result of investigation as found in
column No.17 and the judgment of the Apex Court, permitting
further proceedings would become an abuse of process of law
and result in miscarriage of justice.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed;
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:17940
ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.253/2020
before the VII Additional Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Mysuru, stands
quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KG
