Karnataka High Court

Smt Jamila W/O Mukhtar Ansari vs State Of Karnataka on 21 October, 2024

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

                                                 -1-
                                                            NC: 2024:KHC-D:15100
                                                        CRL.P No. 102722 of 2024




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                          DHARWAD BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024

                                               BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
                              CRIMINAL PETITION No. 102722 OF 2024
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SMT. JAMILA W/O MUKHTAR ANSARI
                           W/O MUKHTAR ANSARI
                           AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
                           OCC: HOUSE HOLD
                           R/O: SANT ROHIDAS NAGAR
                           ZEE COLONY, H.No. 659/2, ANGOL
                           BELAGAVI - 590 006.

                      2.   SHRI. MUKHTAR
                           S/O SUJAYAT ANSARI
                           AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
                           OCC: FOUNDRY WORK (LABOUR)
                           R/O: SANT ROHIDAS NAGAR
                           ZEE COLONY, H.No. 659/2, ANGOL
                           BELAGAVI - 590 006.
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA       3.   SHRI. NISAR S/O QAYUM ANSARI
MURTHY RAJASHRI
                           S/O QAYUM ANSARI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                   AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
KARNATAKA
                           OCC: LABOUR
                           R/O: SANT ROHIDAS NAGAR
                           UDYAMBAG No.31659, 4TH CROSS
                           BELAGAVI - 590 006.

                      4.   SMT. RUKSANA
                           S/O NISAR ANSARI
                           W/O NISAR ANSARI
                           AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
                           OCC: HOUSE HOLD
                           R/O No.31659, 4TH CROSS
                             -2-
                                      NC: 2024:KHC-D:15100
                                  CRL.P No. 102722 of 2024




     SANT ROHIDAS NAGAR
     UDYAMBAG
     BELAGAVI - 590 006.

5.   SHRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR
     S/O ILAHI ANSARI
     W/O ILAHI ANSARI
     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
     OCC: NIL
     R/O: SANT ROHIDAS NAGAR
     H. No. C/6,MAJAGAON
     BELAGAVI - 590 008.
                                           ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI Z M HATTARKI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY WOMEN POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI
     REPTD, BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     DHARWAD.

2.   SMT. ASIFAKHATUN MUSTAQ ANSARI
     W/O MUSTAQ ANSARI
     AGE: 35 YEARS
     OCC: HOUSE HOLD
     R/O: 659/2, SANT ROHIDAS NAGAR
     ZEE COLONY, TILAKWADI
     BELAGAVI - 590 006.

     PRESENT ADDRESS:
     466/2, MUSLIM GALLI
     ANGOL, BELAGAVI - 590 006.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1
 R2 SERVED. UNREPRESETNED)

       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF Cr.P.C.
(528    OF BNSS), SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
                                -3-
                                              NC: 2024:KHC-D:15100
                                       CRL.P No. 102722 of 2024




PROCEEDINGS IN CC No.907/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH
IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ND JMFC BELAGAVI AND ALL
OTHER PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.2 TO 5 AND 7.

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

CORAM:     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR


                       ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)

1. The petitioners / accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7 have

sought quashing the entire proceedings in

C.C.No.907/2022 pending on the file of J.M.F.C-II Court,

Belagavi registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as

'IPC').

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 -

State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 has

remained absent and unrepresented.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15100

3. Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint and a case

came to be registered in Belagavi Woman Police Station in

Crime No.36/2022 for the offences punishable under

Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC,

wherein these petitioners have been arraigned as accused

Nos.2 to 5 and 7. The police after investigation have filed

the charge sheet against the petitioners and two others for

the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504,

506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners have been

arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7 in the charge sheet.

Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and a

case came to be registered in C.C.No.907/2022. The

petitioners have sought quashing of the proceedings of the

said criminal case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend

that the marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1

had taken place ten years ago. The allegations made in

the complaint against these petitioners are omnibus

allegations. There are no specific dates, place and time

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15100

mentioned in the complaint. On that point, he placed

reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors Vs State of

Bihar & Ors reported in 2022 (6) SCC 599. With this,

he prayed to allow the petition.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent No.1 - State would contend that there are

specific allegations against these petitioners harassing

respondent No.2 along with other accused and giving her

life threat and also instigating accused No.1 to marry

some other lady so as to get more dowry. There are no

grounds for quashing the proceedings. With this, he

prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The marriage of respondent No.2 with accused No.1-

Sri.Mustak had taken place ten years prior to the

complaint. It is alleged in the complaint that after some

days of marriage, husband of respondent No.2, her

mother-in-law and father-in-law instigated her husband

and her husband used to assault her and abuse her in

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15100

filthy language. At that time, her parents approached the

Jamat members who advised them. It is stated that

thereafter, they looked after her well and again they

started harassing her. It is alleged that father-in-law

(accused No.3 / petitioner No.2), mother-in-law (accused

No.2 / petitioner No.1) of respondent No.2, her mother-in-

law's sister's son Sri.Nisar (accused No.4 / petitioner No.3)

and his wife Smt.Ruksana (accused No.5 / petitioner No.4)

and her sister-in-law Smt.Amina Kousar (accused No.6)

and her husband's brother Sri.Tahir (accused No.7 /

petitioner No.5) started harassing her. It is alleged that

they have threatened to kill her and instigated her

husband to marry another lady. There is no specific date

mentioning any of the incidents which are narrated in the

complaint. The allegations made in the complaint against

the petitioners and accused No.6 are general omnibus

allegations. The charge-sheet witnesses namely

respondent No.2's mother and her two younger brothers

have stated similar to that of averments made in the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15100

complaint. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Kahkashan Kausar (supra), has held as under;

"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.

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 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

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15100

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." 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 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."

7. The allegations made against these petitioners are

general omnibus allegations. Therefore, upon

consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:15100

absence of any specific role attributed to the petitioners, it

would be unjust if the petitioners 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. In view of the above, the proceedings

against these petitioners in C.C.No.907/2022 pending on

the file of JMFC-II Court, Belagavi requires to be quashed.