Karnataka High Court

Gangamma And Ors vs The State And Anr on 19 November, 2024

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                              -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC-K:8618
                                                    CRL.P No. 200383 of 2024




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                        DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

                                           BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200383 OF 2024
                                   (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   GANGAMMA W/O GURUSHANTAPPA SAVALAGI
                        AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                        R/O. H.NO.34 SHAHABAD ROAD NAGANAHALLI
                        GULBARGA PTC TQ. DIST. KALABURAGI - 585102.

                   2.   GURUSHANTAPPA S/O REVANASIDDAPPA SAVALAGI
                        AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        NAGANAHALLI GULBARGA PTC
                        TQ. DIST. KALABURAGI - 585102.

                   3.   REVANASIDDAPPA S/O GURUSHANTAPPA SAVALAGI
                        AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                        R/O #183 RING ROAD NAGANAHALLI
Digitally signed
by KHAJAAMEEN           CJ COLONY KALABURAGI
L MALAGHAN              TQ. DIST. KALABURAGI-585103.
Location: High
Court Of
Karnataka          4.   ERAMMA JANAVAD W/O GAUDAPPA JANAWAD
                        AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                        R/O H.NO.598 NEAR LAXMIDEVI
                        TEMPLE NAGARAL,
                        TQ AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586113.

                   5.   SRIDEVI W/O BHAIRAPPA
                        AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                        R/O SOMADEVARHATTI BABANAGAR
                        TQ & DIST. VIJAYAPURA - 586114.
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC-K:8618
                                 CRL.P No. 200383 of 2024




6.   BHAGYASHREE W/O REVANASIDDAPPA
     AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O. H.NO.34 SHAHABAD ROAD NAGANAHALLI
     GULBARGA PTC
     TQ. DIST. KALABURAGI - 585 102.
                                        ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)


AND:


1.   THE STATE THROUGH KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN P.S
     KALABURAGI B SUB DIVISION,
     ITS REP. THROUGH SPP PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KALABURAGI BENCH - 585107.

2.   BHUVANESHWARI W/O SHIVARUDRAPPA
     AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O NAGANAHALLI T
     TQ & DIST. KALABURAGI - 585104.

                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. ANITA M. REDDY, HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI. GURUBASAVA C., NAYAK ADVOCATE FOR
    SRI. RAMCHANDRA K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO. 11001/2023 IN CRIME NO.27/2023
IN FIR NO.497/2023 REGISTERED BY THE KALABURAGI CITY
WOMEN POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
U/SEC 498A, 323, 504, 506, 109 R/W 34 OF THE IPC WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF IN THE COURT OF THE
HONOURABLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC KALABURAGI.

     THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:   HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                             -3-
                                        NC: 2024:KHC-K:8618
                                  CRL.P No. 200383 of 2024




                       ORAL ORDER

Petitioners are before this Court in this petition

preferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking quashing of

the entire proceedings in C.C.No.11001/2023 pending on

the file of the Court of Ist Additional C.J (J.D) & JMFC

Court Kalalburagi.

2. FIR in Crime No.27/2023 was registered at

Kalaburagi City Women Police Station against accused

Nos.1 to 7 for offences punishable under Sections

498(A), 323, 504, 506, 109 r/w 34 of IPC, on a complaint

lodged by respondent No.2. The investigation culminated

in filing of charge sheet for the aforementioned offences.

3. Accused No.1 is the husband, accused Nos.2

and 3 are the parents in-law, accused No.4 is the brother-

in-law, accused Nos.5 and 6 are the sisters-in-law of the

complainant. Accused No.7 is the wife of accused No.4.

4. Petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 7 respectively.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8618

5. The learned counsel for petitioners contended

that, general and omnibus allegations are made against

the petitioners and relied on several judgments of the

Hon'ble Apex Court to contend that general allegations

made against the relatives of the husband without

assigning any specific and distinct role, are not sufficient

to proceed against them and therefore, the entire criminal

proceedings initiated against them are liable to be

quashed.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader and learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2 / de-facto complainant contended that there are

materials against the petitioners and their names finds a

place in the FIR and therefore, there is a prima-facie case

against them. They contended that the petitioners have to

stand trial, in view of filing of the charge sheet and no

grounds are made out to quash the proceedings.

7. As per complaint averments, the marriage of

respondent No.2 with accused No.1 was performed on

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8618

27.04.2012. It is alleged that as per the demand made by

accused persons, 7 tola gold, cash of Rs.1 lakh and

household articles worth Rs.5 lakhs were given at the time

of marriage and the marriage was celebrated by spending

a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. For about 6 months, the

complainant was looked after properly by her husband and

in-laws and thereafter, they started demanding Rs.5 lakhs.

Further, in spite of the advice of her parents and relatives,

torture and demand continued and for one or the other

reasons, all the accused were subjecting the complainant

to cruelty and they were also suspecting her fidelity. It is

further alleged that at the instigation of other accused

persons, accused No.1 was subjecting the complainant to

physical and mental torture and the accused were taunting

the complainant with pricking words etc.

8. Further allegations in the complaint are that, on

12.03.2022 at about 11.00 PM., accused No.1 saying that

he will contract second marriage, abused and threatened

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8618

the complainant and drove her out of the house, at the

instigation of other accused persons.

9. In the complaint as well as the statements of

the witnesses recorded during investigation, it is stated

that on 12.03.2022, complainant was driven out of her

house and in spite of an effort made by complainant's

relatives, she was not brought back to her matrimonial

home. The specific allegations are against accused No.1

that on 12.03.2022 at about 11.00 PM., he held the

complainant by neck and drove her out of the house. It is

alleged that it was done by him at the instance of other

accused persons namely the petitioners herein. Omnibus

allegations are made that the petitioners were demanding

Rs.5 lakhs and they were suspecting the fidelity of the

complainant etc. It is not specifically alleged that the

petitioners have assaulted, abused or threatened the

complainant. No specific or distinct allegations are made

against the petitioners and none of the petitioners have

been attributed with any specific role.

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8618

10. In Achin Gupta vs. State of Haryana and

another reported in 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 343 the Apex

Court has held that the court owes a duty to subject the

allegations leveled in the complaint to a thorough scrutiny

to find out, prima facie, whether there is any grain of truth

in the allegations or whether they are made only with the

sole object of involving certain individuals in a criminal

charge, more particularly when a prosecution arises from a

matrimonial dispute.

11. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others

vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2022) 6 SCC

599, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that courts should

be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in

crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry

deaths and must keep in mind that 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. The Apex Court has expressed

concerned over the misuse of Section 498-A of IPC and

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8618

increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband

in matrimonial dispute, without analyzing the long term

ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the

accused. It is observed therein that, false implication by

way of general and omnibus allegations made in the

course of matrimonial disputes, if left and unchecked,

would result in misuse of process of law.

12. It is brought to the notice of the Court that

petitioner Nos.4 and 5 i.e., accused Nos.5 and 6, sisters-

in-law of the complainant are married and residing

separately. By way of general allegations they too have

been roped in.

13. This Court is of the considered view that the

proceedings against the petitioners are nothing but an

abuse of process of law, which cannot be allowed to

continue.

14. Hence, the following:

NC: 2024:KHC-K:8618

ORDER

i. Petition is allowed.

ii. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.11001/2023

pending on the file of Crime No.272023 insofar

as petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 7 are hereby

quashed.