Karnataka High Court

Mumtaj Begum vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 25 February, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308
                                                      CRL.P No. 200666 of 2024




                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                         DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                           CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200666 OF 2024


                   BETWEEN:

                   MUMTAJ BEGUM W/O MAHEBOOB SAB,
                   AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                   R/AT. ROUDAL BANDA, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
                   DIST. RAICHUR-584122.
                                                                 ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI B.C.JAKA, ADV.)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
Digitally signed        KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
by SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH                KLAABURAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585102,
Location: HIGH          NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
COURT OF                HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA
                        KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.

                   2.   SMT. SYEDA AYESHA AMREEN W/O JAHANGIR,
                        AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
                        R/AT. ROUDAL BANDA, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
                        NOW R/AT. H.NO.4-601/73G, MB NAGAR,
                        KALABURAGI-585105.
                                                            ...RESPONDENTS

                   (BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1
                       SRI SYED MASTAN, ADV. FOR R2)
                                 -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308
                                      CRL.P No. 200666 of 2024




     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE CASE IN C.C NO.
1732/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. JMFC AT
KALABURAGI, WHICH IS REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF CASE
REGISTERED     IN   CRIME    NO.84/2022     AND   AFTER
INVESTIGATION FILED CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER,
TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND TO PREVENT ABUSE
OF PROCESS OF THE COURT AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER
OR ORDERS, WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO PASS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY


                           ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

1. Accused no.2 in C.C.No.1733/2023 pending before the

Court of I Addl. JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime

No.82/2024 registered by Kalaburagi City Women Police

Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323,

504, 506, 108 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is before this Court under Section

482 of Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in

the aforesaid case as against her.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is mother of accused no.1 who is the husband of

respondent no.2. Accused no.1 and respondent no.2 were

staying in Kalaburagi, whereas petitioner is the permanent

resident of Raichur. Accused no.1 was the employee of local

municipality at Kalaburagi. The entire allegations in the first

information is as against accused no.1, and the other accused

persons allegedly have only instigated accused no.1 and no

other allegations are found against them.

3. Per contra, learned HCGCP who has opposed the prayer

made in the petition does not dispute the submissions made by

the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

4. Perusal of the material available on record would go to

show that the marriage of respondent no.2 herein with accused

no.1 was performed on 21.06.2021. In the first information, it

is alleged that at the time of marriage as per the demand

made, dowry was paid to accused no.1. In the first information

itself, it is stated that accused no.1 was working as a Junior

Civil Engineer in Kalaburagi Mahanagara Palike and he and his

relatives were residing in a rented house at Kalaburagi. In the

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308

first information, it is alleged that on 03.07.2021, accused no.1

came to the house and had abused and assaulted respondent

no.2, and thereafter, left the house. It is further stated in the

first information that the whereabouts of accused no.1 is not

known to respondent no.2 ever since 03.07.2021.

5. The first information in the present case is submitted on

22.08.2022 which is after a period of more than one year from

the last date of incident and from the date from which the

whereabouts of accused no.1 is not known to respondent no.2.

In the first information, the address of the petitioner herein is

shown as Raichur, whereas respondent no.2 is residing in

Kalaburagi city. Except the bald allegation that accused no.2

along with the other accused had instigated her husband to

commit the crime, there is no other specific allegations against

the petitioner. Petitioner who is a lady aged about 65 years is

facing trial for the alleged offences based on general and

omnibus allegations made by respondent no.2 who is her

daughter-in-law.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PREETI GUPTA

AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER1 has

held as follows:

"32. It is matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts of our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.

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 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 498-A 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.

(2010) 7 SCC 667

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308

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 the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and 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 complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of TARBEZ

KHAN ALIAS GUDDU & OTHERS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

& ANOTHER2 and in the case of SEENIVASAN VS THE STATE BY

INSPECTOR OF POLICE3, has observed that in the absence of

(2019)4 SCC 615

(2 019)8 SCC 642

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308

specific allegations, which would attract the offences, an attempt to

implicate the near relatives of the husband cannot be permitted.

8. This Court in the case of ASMA KHANUM @ NOOR ASMA &

OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER4 has held that

when the material on record would go to show that the