Karnataka High Court

Shivkumar Ma And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 13 November, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2024:KHC-K:8407
                                                    CRL.P No. 200668 of 2023




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                     KALABURAGI BENCH
                        DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
                                           BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200668 OF 2023
                                   (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
                   BETWEEN:
                   1.   SHIVKUMAR S/O AMRUTH S MURTURKAR
                        AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: GRAMEENA BANK EMPLOYEE
                        R/O: JANWADA ROAD FIRE STATION
                        QUARTERS BIDAR, TQ:DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
                   2.   KAMLA W/O AMRUTH MURTURKAR
                        AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
                        R/O: JANWADA ROAD FIRE STATION
                        QUARTERS NAVADGERI, BIDAR
                        TQ:DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
                   3.   AMRUTH S/O SHIVARAYA MURTURKAR
                        AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
                        R/O: JANWADA ROAD FIRE STATION
                        QUARTERS NAVADGERI, BIDAR
                        TQ:DIST: BIDAR - 585 401.
Digitally signed   4.   SANGEETA W/O UDAY KUMAR SEDAMKAR
by KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN              AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
Location: HIGH          R/O: H.NO.2-910-65/209 NEAR
COURT OF
KARNATAKA               BHAVANI FLOUR MILL KALABURAGI
                        SEDAM ROAD KALABURAGI
                        NOW AT SHANTKI NAGAR RAICHUR
                   5.   SHARDHA W/O SATISH BHAGYAWADI
                        AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
                        R/O: JANWADA ROAD FIRE STATION
                        QUARTERS NAVADGERI BIDAR
                        TQ:DIST: BIDAR
                        NOW AT BHAGYAWADI VIJAYAPUR
                                                              ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SRI. JAIRAJ K BUKKA, ADVOCATE)
                            -2-
                                         NC: 2024:KHC-K:8407
                                  CRL.P No. 200668 of 2023




AND:
1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY ITS WOMEN POLICE STATION KALABURAGI CITY
     REP. BY ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     BENCH KALABURAGI.
2.   ANUJA W/O SHIVKUMAR MA
     D/O SIDRAM MASAL
     AGE: 29 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
     R/O: JANWADA ROAD FIRE STATION
     QUARTERS NAVADGERI BIDAR
     TQ:DIST: BIDAR
     NOW AT SIDDESHWAR COLONY
     AMBIKA NAGAR KALABURAGI
     TQ:DIST: KALABURAGI-585101
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. NEEVA M. CHIMKOD, ADV. FOR R2)
       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT

AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.125/2022 AND NOW

C.C.NO.20638/2022    BY   THE    WOMEN    POLICE   STATION

KALABURAGI CITY FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER

SECTIONS 498(A), 323, 504, 506 AND 109 READ WITH

SECTION 34 IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT,

PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT

AT KALABURAGI.


       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                  -3-
                                               NC: 2024:KHC-K:8407
                                        CRL.P No. 200668 of 2023




CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ


                          ORAL ORDER

This petition is preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

praying to quash the FIR and complaint in Crime

No.125/2022, registered at Kalaburagi City Women Police

Station, which has culminated in filing of charge-sheet in

C.C.No.20638/2022 on the file of the Court of Additional

Civil Judge and JMFC, at Kalaburagi.

02. Heard both sides and perused the materials on

record.

03. The above mentioned crime was registered

against petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 on the basis of a

complaint lodged by respondent No.2 i.e., wife of

petitioner No.1, for offences punishable under Sections

498(A), 323, 504, 506 and 109 read with Section 34 of

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8407

04. It is the case of prosecution that the marriage

of respondent No.2 - complainant was performed with

petitioner No.1 on 03.01.2021 as per the customs

prevailed in their community and at the time of marriage

as per the demand made by accused persons, 10 tolas of

gold was given and a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- was spent for

marriage expenses. After the marriage, only for 2-3

months, the complainant was looked after properly and

thereafter, all the accused started picking up quarrel with

her saying that no sufficient dowry was given. Further, an

additional dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- was also demanded. It

is alleged that all the accused were subjecting the

complainant to physical and mental cruelty etc.,

05. Learned counsel for petitioners has contended

that omnibus allegations are made against the petitioners

in the complaint and in the statements of witnesses

recorded during investigation. He contended that, the

complaint is motivated, since complainant herself has

refused to stay with her husband, due to which petitioner

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8407

No.1 issued notice for her to join him and inspite of that

the complainant refused to join her husband and

therefore, a petition was filed seeking restitution of

conjugal rights. He submitted that the said petition was

allowed by the Family Court, Bidar and inspite of the order

passed directing the complainant to join her husband, she

has refused to comply with the said order. He contended

that subsequent to issuance of legal notice dated

20.06.2022, she has filed the complaint to the police

making false allegations against all the petitioners.

06. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2

has contended that in view of the harassment and torture

meted to the complainant, she started living in her

matrimonial home. She contended that in the complaint

there are specific allegations that the petitioners have

subjected the complainant to mental and physical torture

and that the petitioners were demanding additional dowry

of Rs.10,00,000/-. She therefore, contended that the

ingredients of the offences alleged in the complaint are

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8407

made out and therefore, the proceedings cannot be

quashed.

07. As per the complaint averments, for about 2-3

months after her marriage, complainant stayed in her

matrimonial home. It is alleged that on 15.04.2021 at

about 10:00 AM., her in-laws picked up quarrel with her

and abused her and demanded additional dowry of

Rs.10,00,000/-. It is alleged that they were torturing her

physically and mentally. Further, petitioner Nos.4 and 5

namely her sisters-in-law were visiting the house and

abusing and assaulting her etc.

08. It is further stated in the complaint that

complainant stayed with her husband and parents-in-law

in a rented house in Bidar, as her husband was working in

a Bank in Bidar. They were demanding to get money from

her parental home etc. On 08.05.2022 her husband

informed complainant's father over phone to take her back

and on the same day at about 3:00 PM her parents and

other relatives came to Bidar and at that time they were

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8407

abused etc., and hence, her parents took the complainant

to Kalaburagi.

09. From the complaint averments it can be seen

that after the complainant was taken to her parental home

on 08.05.2022 she remained there and the husband and

relatives did not take her back to her matrimonial home. It

is alleged that the husband pressurized her to give

divorce.

10. It is not in dispute that M.C.No.106/2022 was

filed by petitioner No.1 i.e., complainant's husband, under

Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking

restitution of conjugal rights. The said petition was

allowed on 20.02.2023. However, the complainant has

refused to live with her husband. It is contended by the

learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant that in

view of the harassment and torture meted to the

complainant, she has not returned to her matrimonial

home.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8407

11. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied on a

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2018) 14

SCC 452 in the case of K.Subba Rao V. State of

Telangana to contend that 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.

12. In the case on hand, the marriage of the

complainant with petitioner No.1 was performed on

03.01.2021. As per complaint, initially only for 2-3

months, the complainant stayed in her matrimonial home.

One instance is referred in the complaint alleging that on

15.04.2021 at about 10:00 AM., her in-laws picked up

quarrel and abused her and also demanded additional

dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- to be brought from her parental

home. A reading of the complaint clearly show that

accused Nos.4 and 5 namely the sisters-in-law of the

complainant are residing separately. It is alleged that

they used to visit the house and abuse the complainant

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8407

and telling her that she should meet the demands made

by her husband and parents in law. Further allegations

are that her parents in-law and sisters-in-law were

instigating her husband etc. It is stated that,

subsequently, the complainant was living with her

husband and parents-in-law in a rented house in Bidar,

wherein she was being harassed etc., and on 08.05.2022

her husband telephoned complainant's father saying that

they should take their daughter back etc.

13. A perusal of the entire charge sheet material

would show that, omnibus allegations are made against

petitioner Nos.2 to 5. Admittedly petitioner Nos.4 and 5

are married sisters of petitioner No.1. They are living

separately. The allegations that they were instigating

accused No.1 etc., is very vague and omnibus in nature.

14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar

alias Sonam & Others vs. State of Bihar & Others

reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599 has held at Para 17 as

under:

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8407

"17. 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."

15. Even accepting that, after issuance of notice to

the complainant and subsequent to filing of a petition

under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the present

complaint was filed, the same will not absolve petitiner

No.1 from facing the proceedings now initiated against

him. Inspite of the said M.C. petition seeking restitution of

conjugal rights having been allowed, the complainant has

not joined her husband, which show at this stage that

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8407

there is harassment to the complainant by petitioner No.1.

Hence, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case

against petitioner No.1. Hence, the proceedings cannot be

quashed in so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned.

16. For the foregoing reasons, following:

ORDER

I. Petition is partly allowed.

II. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.20638/2022

on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,

Kalaburagi is quashed in so far as petitioner Nos.2 to

5/accused Nos.2 to 5 are concerned.