Karnataka High Court
Sri K M Darpan vs State Of Karnataka on 23 January, 2024
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 05.01.2024
Pronounced on : 23.01.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.14303 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. K.M.DARPAN
S/O LATE SRI. K.L.MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.7, NHCS LAYOUT
KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION ROAD
SWAYAMPRABHA KALYANAMANTAPA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 079.
2. SMT. PUSHPALATA MANJUNATH
W/O LATE SRI. K.L.MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.7, NHCS LAYOUT
KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION ROAD
SWAYAMPRABHA KALYANAMANTAPA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 079.
3. SMT. K.M.CHAITRA
W/O DR. SURAJ
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.7, NHCS LAYOUT
KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION ROAD
SWAYAMPRABHA KALYANAMANTAPA ROAD
2
BENGALURU - 560 079.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K.M.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH VISHWANATHPURA POLICE STATION
VIJAYAPURA CIRCLE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
2. SMT. DR. MONIKA MUNEGOWDA
D/O MUNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
R/AT PALYA, KANMANGALA POST
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
ALSO AT:
DR. MONIKA MUNEGOWDA, M.D.,
SENIOR RESIDENT
DEPARTMENT OF DERMATOLOGY
KEMPEGOWDA INSTITUTE OF
MEDICAL SCIENCE, V.V.PURAM
BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1;
SRI. S.SHANKARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO THE
FIR NO.285/2022 IN CRIME NO.90/2022; QUASH THE FIR FILED BY
THE R-1 POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.90/2022
DTD.28.6.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 05.01.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Crime No.90 of 2022 registered on 28-06-2022 for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 ('the Act' for short).
2. Heard Sri K.M. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Navya Shekhar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S.Shankarappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
Before embarking upon consideration of the case on its merits, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, wife of the 1st petitioner. The 2nd petitioner is the mother-in-law of the complainant and the 3rd petitioner is the sister-in-law of the complainant. The 1st petitioner gets married to the complainant on 4 23-11-2017. It is the narration in the petition that the two stayed only for 25 days together and the complainant on the pretext of preparation for an examination began to stay in a hostel and later at her parental house. On 28-05-2018 it appears that the relationship between the couple turned sore because of which the wife leaves the matrimonial house. Several instances of harassment and torture find narration in the complaint. On 07-01-2021 the 1st petitioner causes a legal notice calling upon the complainant for acceptance of mutual divorce. A reply is submitted to the said notice by the complainant and later another reply comes about on 22-02-2021. After the replies, the 1st petitioner files M.C.No.1660 of 2021 before the Family Court seeking a decree of divorce against the complainant on grounds of desertion and cruelty. The complainant files her objections on 31-08-2021. The proceedings go on before the Family Court where examination and cross-examination also gets over. The concerned Court refers the matter for mediation. The mediation is sought to be undertaken, but the 1st petitioner was unable to appear for mediation on 27-06-2022 due to ill-health. During the pendency of conciliation a 5 crime comes to be registered by the complainant in Crime No.90 of 2022 for the aforesaid offences. It is, therefore, the petitioners are before this Court in the subject petition calling the said crime in question.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri K.M. Prakash would vehemently contend that parties were negotiating a settlement for the purpose of conclusion of proceedings in M.C.No.1660 of 2021 for grant of divorce. Throughout there was no allegation of demand of dowry or torture by the family of the petitioners. All of a sudden all the allegations come about on registration of the crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. He would submit that it is a gross misuse of power.
5. The learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent Sri S.Shankarappa would though seek to refute the submissions, but admits the fact that in none of the replies there was any allegation of demand of dowry or any torture from the hands of the family of the petitioners. He would only submit that the matter is 6 still at the stage of crime. Therefore, further proceedings should be permitted to be continued.
6. The learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Navya Shekhar would also toe the lies of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri S.Shankarappa.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the parties is as aforementioned. Marriage between the two, the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent, takes place on 23-11-2017. The narration is that the complainant leaves the matrimonial house on 28-05-2018 which stands to reason as that is the date mentioned in the complaint. The 1st petitioner causes a legal notice calling upon the complainant for acceptance of divorce by consent. It is replied on 01-02-2021 by paragraph to 7 paragraph of the notice. Certain paragraphs of the reply are germane to be noticed and they read as follows:
"34 Reg. Para 39 My client instructs me to state that the averments made in the said para are specifically denied as false and incorrect. My client instructs me to state that the allegations are created stories and woven with malafide intention. My client instructs me to state that the terms put forth by your client and his parents are dictatorial one and by suppressing the acts, deeds and things done by your client.
35 Reg. Para 40 My client instructs me to state that the averments made in the said para are specifically denied as false and incorrect. My client instructs me to state that the allegations are created stories and woven with malafide intention.
36 Reg. Para 41 My client instructs me to state that the averments made in the said para are specifically denied as false and incorrect. My client instructs me to state that the allegations are created stories. One of your client's colleague Mr. Amrita Sharma who is associated with him since longtime, used to call him repeatedly late night/early morning. This used to disturb their space and initially she has adjusted but it continued to happen. As such she has called Mrs.Amrita Sharma on 16.8.2019, and was requested by my client not to disturb and call during late night to your client and other allegations made therein are all denied as false.
37 Reg. Para 42 My client instructs me to state that the averments made in the said para are specifically denied as false and incorrect. My client instructs me to state that the allegations are created stories In fact your client has suppressed his conduct and character. He was in the habit of sending Whattsapp messages to my client every now and then threatening that he will commit suicide. My client and your client were not allowed to live together by his mother and 8 sister. In fact before the marriage he was having some problems and without disclosing the same the marriage has been performed. All along during his stay with my client he was not in a position to behave properly to a wife and was interested to participate social gathering and get together and party functions During her stay with your client for 5 days at Delhi he was not in a position to take her out of the residence for the reasons best known to your client. If the Whatsapp messages are read it will clearly establish that your client is having some problems and he is having no such intention to lead marital life.
38 Reg. Para 43 My client instructs me to state that the averments made in the said para are specifically denied as false and incorrect. My client instructs me to state that the allegations are created stories In fact in the said meeting it was decided to keep the marital tie alive and my client shall join your client and your client shall accept her and lead a happy marital life and by co-operating with each other. Though your client has agreed for the same subsequently he has withdrawn from the said settlement for the reasons best known to him.
39 Reg. Para 44 My client instructs me to state that the averments made in the said para are specifically denied as false and incorrect. My client instructs me to state that the allegations are created stories. In order to substantiate the language of the messages sent by your client to my client it is necessary to compare his mental stature before analyzing him whether he is in a position to lead marital 40 My client instructs me to state that on 20.08.2018 she has gone to her-in-law's house along with her father, wherein her in-laws, sister-in-law and her son and my client and your client used to stay. When she has entered the housie your client's mother was alone and rest of them have left for their work. Your client's mother pushed my client out of the house stating that "It is her daughter's house my client has no place."9
41 My client instructs me to state that since 23rd Nov. 2018 is the first wedding anniversary, she has gone to Delhi with an intention to celebrate the first wedding anniversary with your client. She has gone there in the flight of 1.20 p.m., and reached by 5.30 p.m. She reached the house of your client 7.00 p.m. She has got confirmed that your client is in the house from the security. She rang the bell but your client has refused to come out or open the door of the house. Immediately he has called his parents and his parents have told him not to take her inside and send her back to Bangalore by using unparliamentary words. His parents and her brother and told that if something happens to her in Delhi they were not responsible She was standing all alone in front of the door waiting for him to open. At about 00.40 a.m., in the midnight your client slowly opened the door and walked over to her and locked the door and smiled at her and walked out. She has waited outside the house in the cold chill till 2 .am., thinking that he will come back. Her parents have called her and asked her to come back to Bangalore on 27.11.2018 by 7.00a.m. flight.
42 There are several mental cruelty committed by your client and his parents. By suppressing their misdeeds and illegal acts, cruelty your client has got issued the notice bases on created stories. Without prejudice to the aforesaid facts my client is ready to forgive the illegal acts and deeds and done by your client, and she is ready and willing to live jointly and lead a happy marital life. As such she is not in a position to give consent for filing the joint petition.
43 Despite this reply notice if your client were to rush to court of law for the imaginary reliefs, the same will be resisted at the cost and risk of your client."
The 1st petitioner again causes rejoinder to the reply to steer clear the facts. The 1st petitioner then files M.C.No.1660 of 2021. The complainant files her objections. The M.C. petition is venting out 10 only grievances against each other. Examination and cross-
examination also happened in the said case and as against the order passed on the applications in M.C.No.1660 of 2021 by the concerned Court, the complainant had approached this Court in W.P.No.10003 of 2022. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by the following order:
"4. The respondent-husband filed M.C.No.1660/2021 before the Principal Judge, Family Court at Bengaluru under Section 13,(1), (ia) and (1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for dissolution of marriage solemnized between the petitioner and respondent on 23.11.2017 seeking for a decree of divorce.
5. The respondent herein who is the petitioner before the Family Court examined himself as P.W.1 on 14.09.2021 and thereafter the matter was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1. Since the petitioner herein failed to cross-examine P.W.1, even after sufficient opportunity by the Family Court on 07.04.2022 closed the petitioner's side evidence and posted for respondent's evidence to 19.04.2022. On 19.04.2022, the petitioner herein filed two applications i.e., I.A.Nos.V and VI under Section 151 as well as under Order 18 Rule 7 of CPC, respectively. On the same day, respondent husband filed objections to the application and the Family Court, by its order dated 19.04.2022, rejected both the applications with costs and took respondent's side evidence as "not adduced" and posted for arguments by 25.05.2022. Challenging the order dated 19.04.2022, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent have opposed each other by taking several contentions. Learned counsel for the respondent Sri.K.M.Prakash fairly submits that the petitioner herein be given an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent on a 11 particular day without dragging the proceedings further. Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is reasonable and the same is accepted. Thereafter, learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to indicate a date for cross-examination of P.W.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a memo dated 25.05.2022 indicating the date as 10.06.2022 for cross-examination of P.W.1.
7. In the interest of justice and to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1 and to adduce her evidence, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall not drag on the proceedings unnecessarily. Hence, the following order:
(i) The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19.04.2022 is set aside.
(ii) P.W.1 shall be present before the Court on 10.06.2022.
(iii) The petitioner herein shall cross-examine P.W.1 on 10.06.2022 and continue the cross-
examination on day to day basis.
(iv) On conclusion of cross-examination of P.W.1, the petitioner herein shall be afforded an opportunity to lead her evidence.
(v) The respondent to cross-examine the petitioner, if she leads evidence, without taking any adjournments.
(vi) Both parties shall co-operate with the Family Court for early disposal of the matter.
(vii) The Family Court, Bengaluru is directed to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months from today."
After the said order, cross-examination was taken up on day-to-day basis. During subsistence of cross-examination, a complaint comes 12 to be registered. The Police issue a Non-Cognizable Report holding that it is a dispute within the family on 18-06-2022. During subsistence of NCR and proceedings before the concerned Court in M.C.No.1660 of 2021, the 1st respondent issues a notice to the 1st petitioner to appear before the Conciliator, which was to be before the Department of Women and Child Development. The 1st petitioner did not appear on 27-06-2022 for a settlement as he was unwell and informed the Conciliator that he would appear on 30-07- 2022. He sought a month's time. In the interregnum comes the impugned complaint on 28-06-2022. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.90 of 2022. It is then the petitioners are before this Court. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint, the same is extracted for the purpose of quick reference.
It reads as follows:
"ಇವ ೆ, ಾಂಕ-28/06/2022
ಆರ ಕ ಉಪ- ೕ ಕರು,
ಶ ಾಥಪ ರ ೕ ಾ ೆ,
ೆಂಗಳ!ರು "#ೆ$.
ಇಂದ,
&ಾ. 'ೕ (ಾ ಎಂ. ೌಡ,
(ೋಂ. ದಪ-. (ೆ.ಎಂ.
13
/0./.ಮು ೇ ೌಡ, 31 ವಷ-, ಒಕ4 ಗರು,
567 ಆಸ9:ೆ;ಯ $ = ಯ >ಾ?, (ೆಂಪ@ಮAನಹDE ಾ;ಮ,
ಕಸ ಾ FೋಬD, HೇವನಹDE :ಾಲೂ$ಕು,
ೆಂಗಳ!ರು, ' ೈK ನಂಬL-9538880387
MಾನNOೇ,
ಷಯ: ನನP ಗಂಡ, ಅ:ೆR, ಾ ಮತುR ಅವರ ಸಹಚರರು ಒUಾVW Xೇ (ೊಂಡು ನನP
ಒಡ>ೆ, ಇತOೆ ೆ#ೆ ಾಳYವ ಆಭರಣಗಳನುP ಲಪUಾ\ಸುವ ಸಲು>ಾW ಮತುR Fೆ]^ನ ವರದ_ ೆ ಾW ನನ ೆ 5ರುಕುಳ ೕ`, aಾ ಸ Hೊ;ೕಹ Mಾ`, ನನP ರುದb ಸುಳYE Xಾ_ ಮತುR SÉÆcV Hಾಖ#ೆಗಳ ಸೃಜ ೆ Mಾ`(ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ ]ತ;=ಂXೆ ಇ:ಾN Mಾ`ರುವ ಬ ೆg ದೂರು.
ಾನು hೕಲ4ಂಡ iಾಸದ $ ನನP ತಂHೆ, :ಾ\, ತಂW, ತಮAOೊಂ ೆ >ಾಸ>ಾWರು:ೆRೕ ೆ Fಾಗೂ ಇHೇ ೆಂಗಳ!ರು ನಗರದ $ರುವ . .ಪ ರಂ ಬD ಇರುವ 567 ಆಸ9:ೆ;ಯ $ = ಯ >ಾ?jಾW (ೆಲಸ Mಾಡು@Rರು:ೆRೕ ೆ.
=ೕWರು>ಾ ೆg, ಾನು HಾNk- jಾWHಾlಗ XಾPತ(ೋತRರ ಪದ ಾW 567ನ $ 2017 ರ $ ಓದು@RHಾlಗ ಅHೇ (ಾ#ೇ"ನ $ ಉಪ ಾNಸ5jಾWದl &ಾ.XೆPೕಹ ಮತುR &ಾ.nೈತ;ರವರ ಪ ಚಯ>ಾW ಸದ ಪ ಚಯ ಂದ XೆPೕಹ-ಸಲು ೆ\ಂದ ಇHೆlವ .
&ಾ.nೈ:ಾ;ಳ ತಮA o;ೕ.ದಪ-. (ಾನೂನು ಪದ ೕಧರOಾWದುl, Hೆಹ ಯ $ 2009 ೇ Xಾ ಂದ ವ5ೕಲ ವೃ@Rಯ $ ಇರು:ಾROೆಂದು &ಾ.nೈ:ಾ;ರವರು @D?ದlರು. ಇವರ ತಂHೆ MಾನN ಕ ಾ-ಟಕ Fೈ(ೋr-ನ $ ಾNjಾsೕಶOಾW ಕತ-ವN ವ-=? 2015 ರ $ ವೃತROಾWರು:ಾROೆ. ಇವರ :ಾ\ o;ೕಮ@ ಪ ಷ9ಲ:ಾ ಗೃ=tjಾWರು:ಾROೆ.
&ಾ.nೈ:ಾ; Fಾಗೂ ಆ(ೆಯ ತಮA ಅವರುಗಳ ತಂHೆ ಾNಯಮೂ@- (ೆ.ಎK.ಮಂಜು ಾಥ Fಾಗೂ :ಾ\ ಪ ಷ9ಲ:ಾ ಅ ೊPೕನN>ಾW MnÖUÉ >ಾಸ>ಾWರು:ಾROೆ. &ಾ. nೈ:ಾ;D ೆ ಮದು>ೆjಾWದುl, ಆ(ೆಯ ಗಂಡ &ಾ.ಸೂರu 567 (ಾ#ೇ"ನ $ ಅvಾNಪಕOಾWರು:ಾROೆ. ಅವ ೆ ಒಂದು ಗಂಡು ಮಗು ಇದುl, @ೕವ;ಮಟVದ ಮನXಾRಪ ಂದ ೇOೆ ಇರು:ಾROೆ.
142017ರ ಜೂ0 @ಂಗDನ $ &ಾ.nೈ:ಾ; ಮತುR &ಾ.XೆPೕಹ ನ ೊPಂ ೆ XೆPೕಹ ಂದ ಪ ಸ#ಾ\ಸುತR ಆ(ೆಯ ತಮA ದಪ-. ಒiೆEಯ ಹುಡುಗ ನನ ೆ ಅನುರೂಪ>ಾದ ಒiೆEwೋ` ಆಗು@Rೕ ಎಂದು ನ ನತN FೇಳY:ಾR ಮದು>ೆjಾಗಲು ನನPನುP ಒ:ಾR¸É Mಾ`ದರು.
ಅನಂತರದ $ (ಾ#ೇ"ನ $ ಇರುವ &ಾ.>ೆಂಕUೇx Fೆy.ಓ.`-ಎzಎ ಎK ಇ#ಾ{ೆ ರವರು ಸಹ ನನPನುP ಒ:ಾR\? ಪ ಸ#ಾ\?ದರು. ಅವOೊಂ ೆ ನನP Fೆy.ಓ.` ಶರ} ಸಹ Xೇ (ೊಂಡರು. ಅನಂತರದ $ &ಾ.nೈತ; ಮತ ಾN.(ೆ.ಎK.ಮಂಜು ಾ~ ಮತುR ಅವರ ಪ@P ಪ ಷ9ಲ:ಾ ನನP ತಂHೆ-:ಾ\•ಂ UÉ Mಾತ ಾ` ಸಂಬಂಧ ಕುದು ಸು:ಾROೆ.
ಈ = ೆP#ೆಯ $ ನನP ಮದು>ೆ ದಪ-. ೊಂ ೆ ಾಂಕ: 23-11-2017 ರ $ >ೈಭವ ಂದ ಇHೇ ೆಂಗಳ! ನ •ಾN#ೇ ಆವರಣದ $ರುವ ಾ\@; Fಾರ ಛತ;ದ $ >ೈಭವ ಂದ ನನP ತಂHೆ-:ಾ\ ನ&ೆ?(ೊcVರು:ಾROೆ. Fಾ ೆƒೕ ಆರತ :ೆ ನಂತರದ $ (ೆಲ ನ ಸಂ:ೋಷ ಂದ ಇHೆlವ . (ೆಲ>ೇ ನಗಳ $ ನನP ಗಂಡ ದಪ-. ೊಂ ೆ ಾನು Hೆಹ ೆ FೋHೆನು. Hೆಹ ಯ $ ಾಂಕ: 19.12.2017 ರವOೆ ೆ ಇHೆlನು. ಅ $ ಾನು ಕಂ`Hೆlೕ ೆಂದOೆ, ನನP ಗಂಡ ಅ@jಾದ ಕು`ತ (ಮದNವNಸ ) ದೂಮ;•ಾನ Fಾಗೂ ?„ೕ#ೋಲ ಮತುR ?„ೕ ವNಸ ಆWದುl, ನನPನುP ಆತನ ೆಳ@ಯOಾದ ರ]:ಾ =Oೇಮಠ ಮತುR ಅಮೃತಶMಾ- ೆ ಪ ಚ\?ದ. (ೆಲಸಮಯದ $ ನನ ೆ @D Hೆlೕ ೆಂದOೆ, ನನP ಗಂಡ ೆ ಇವರ wೊ:ೆ ಆ@†ಯ:ೆ ಮತುR ಅ ೈ@ಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇHೆ ಎಂಬ ಷಯ.
ನನ ೆ ಎಂ.`.ಪ ೕ‡ೆ ಇದುlದ ಂದ ೆಂಗಳ! ೆ >ಾಪ ಬಂHೆನು. ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆಯ $ ಒಂದು ನ ಇದುl, ನಂತರ ನಮA ತವರು ಮ ೆ ೆ FೋW, ನಂತರ FಾXೆVK ೆ =ಂ@ರುWHೆ.
ಒಂದು ವಸ ಪ;>ಾಸ(ೆ4ಂದು ನನP XೆPೕ=ತOೊಂ ೆ ಸಕ#ೇಶಪ ರದ XೆPೕ=ತರ ˆಾರಂ ೆ FೋWದುl, ಈ nಾರವನುP ನನP ಅ:ೆR, Mಾವ, ತಂHೆ-:ಾ\ ೆ @D?Hೆl, ನನP ಗಂಡ ನ ೊPಂ ೆ Mಾತು /cVದl ಂದ, ‰ೕ0 ಾ$Š Mಾ`ದl ಂದ ಾನು ದಪ-.UÉ ಸಕ#ೇxಪ ರ(ೆ4 Fೋಗುವ ಬ ೆg ಸಂHೇಶ ಕಳY=?Hೆl, ಅದ(ೆ4 ಅನುಮ@?ದl.
ಈ ಮುನP ಾಂಕ: 31/12/2017 ರಂದು ನನP ಗಂಡ ದಪ-. ನನPನುP ಅaೆ‹ೕಕ FೋUೆK ೆ ಆತನ XೆPೕ=ತ ?Hಾlಥ- ಏಪ-`?ದl •ಾc- ೆ ಕOೆ ದುl, ತಡOಾ@; 3 ಗಂUೆಯವOೆ ಗೂ ಅ@jಾW ಕು`ದು ಆತನ ಅಸಭN ವತ- ೆ\ಂದ ಗ#ಾUೆjಾW ಅದನುP @D ೊD?ದ ಾನು ಗಂಡ ೊಂ ೆ ಮ ೆ ೆ =ಂ@ರುWHೆನು.
ಆಗ ನನP Mಾವ ಾN|| (ೆ.ಎK.ಮಂಜು ಾ~ Fಾಗೂ ನನP ಅ:ೆR ಪ ಷ9ಲ:ಾ Fಾಗೂ ಅವನ ಅಕ4 nೈ:ಾ; ಾWಲನುP :ೆ ೆದು ಮಗನ ಪ ?•@ಯನುP ೋ`, ನನPನುP ದುರುಗುcV ಾವ 15 ೊPಂ ೆ ದಪ-. ೆ ಮದು>ೆ Mಾ`?ದುl, ೕನು ದಪ-.ನನುP ಸ ಪ`ಸುವ ದ(ೆ4 ಅವ ೊಂ ೆ @ರುಗುವ ದಕ4ಲ$ ಎಂದು ಕೃµÀ×>ಾW Mಾತ ಾ`ದರು. ಆದOೆ ಾನು •ಾc-ಯ $ ಜಗಳ /`?ದlಲ$Hೆ ನನP (ಾ ನ $ƒೕ ಕಷVಪಟುV ಅ@jಾW ಕು` ದl ಗಂಡ ದಪ-.ನನುP ಸುರ_ತ>ಾW ಮ ೆ ೆ ಕOೆತಂ ರು:ೆRೕ ೆ, ಅವ ೆ ನನP ಬವ ೆಯ ಅ ರ ಲ$.
ಈ =ಂHೆ Mಾy- 3 ೇ >ಾರ 2018ರ $ ನನP ಗಂಡ ದಪ-. Hೆಹ \ಂದ ‰ೕ0 Mಾ` ೈraೆ‹ೕ ೆ FೋWರುವ HಾW FೇDದನು. jಾOೊಂ ೆ ಅಂHಾಗ ಾಲು4 ಜನ XೆPೕ=ತOೊಂ ೆ ಅಂದ, ಅದರ $ ರ]:ಾ ಇದlಳY ಎಂದು FೇDದ, ಆದOೆ ಅನಂತರ ೆಂಗಳ! ೆ ಬಂHಾಗ ಅವನ wೇ/ನ $ ೈraೆ‹ೕ ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟV c(ೇr ?54ದುl, ರ]:ಾiೆ! ಂ ೆ FೋWHೆlನು ಎಂದು ಸುಳYE FೇDದುl ?54/ lದlರು.
ಅನಂತರದ $, hೕ @ಂಗಳ $ ಅವನು ನನP ‰ೕ0 ೆ `•ೕ (ಾK Mಾ`ದುl, ನನ ೆ ೆD ೆg 7:00 ಗಂUೆ ೆ ಆತನ Fಾ? ೆಯ hೕ#ೆ ಇ ೊPಂದು ' ೈK (ಾt?ತು, ಅದರ ಬ ೆg (ೇDHಾಗ ತ/Ž ಾŽದ ದಪ-. •ೆಚು^'ೕOೆ Fಾ5(ೊಂಡರು, nಾu- ಇಲ$>ೆಂದು ಸಬೂಬು FೇD ತ ಣ>ೇ `•ೕ (ಾK `ಸ4 ೆŠV Mಾ`ರು:ಾROೆ.
hೕ#ೆ FೇDದಂ:ೆ ಾನು ಸಕ#ೇಶಪ ರ ಂದ hೕ 25 2018 ರ $ ಎರಡು ವಸದ ಪ;>ಾಸ ಂದ =ಂ@ರುWHೆ. &ಾ||nೈ:ಾ;ಳ ಮಗನ ಹುಟVಹಬŽ(ೆ4 ನನP ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆ ೆ FೋWದುl, ಅ $ ನನ ೆ ಅಚ^ ಮತುR ಆ•ತ (ಾ ತುR. ನನP ಗಂಡ ನನ ೆ hXೇu ಕಳY=? ಾನು ಆ ಮ ೆಯ $ ಣ(ಾಲ ಇರಕೂಡದು ಎಂದು FೇDದ. ಅಲ$Hೆ ನನP ಅ:ೆR, Mಾವ ಮತುR ಾ ಎಲ$ರೂ ಾನು FೋWದlನುP ಕಂಡು ಮುಖಗಂc54(ೊಂಡು ಅಸಭN>ಾW ನ&ೆ?(ೊಂಡರು, ಾನು ೊಂದ ಮನ?7 ಂದ ತವರು ಮ ೆ ೆ =ಂ@ರುWHೆನು.
ಇದರ ೆನP#ೆ$ ನನP ಗಂಡ ಸಂHೇಶಗಳನುP ಕDಸು:ಾR ನ•AಬŽರ ಮದು>ೆ ಮು ದು / lದುl ˆೇ ಬುŠನ $ Fಾಕುವ HಾW FೇDದl, ಈ ನ ಂದ ನ•AಬŽರ ಸಂಬಂಧದ $ /ರುಕು Fೆ]^ತುR. hೕ 2018 ರ $ ನ&ೆದ ಚು ಾವ ೆಯ $ ನನP ತಂHೆ ಸ9s-?ದುl ಅದರ $ Xೋ@ರು:ಾROೆ. ಈ ಸಂದಭ-ದ $ ನನP ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆಯವರು ಔಪnಾ ಕ>ಾW ನಮA ಮ ೆ ೆ ಬಂ ದlರು Fಾಗೂ ಚು ಾವ ಾ ಸಮಯದ $ ನನP ಗಂಡ ಎರಡು ವಸ ಓ&ಾ`ದlರು.
ನಂತರ, ಜೂ0 2018 ರ $ ಎರಡು ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು, ನನP ಮತುR ದಪ-. ಮvೆN ಪಂnಾ\@ ಆWದುl, ಆ ಪಂnಾ\@ಯ $ ಾನು, ನನP ತಂHೆ :ಾ\, ಅವರ ಕ&ೆ\ಂದ ದಪ-., ಅವನ ಅಕ4 &ಾ.nೈತ; ಮತುR ಅವರ ತಂHೆ :ಾ\ Fಾಜ ದlರು. ದಪ-. ತಂHೆ :ಾ\, ತಮA ಎಲ$ರೂ ದಪ-. jಾವ ಗಂಡಸು Mಾಡದ ತಪ9ನುP Mಾ`ಲ$>ೆಂದು Fಾಗೂ ದಪ-. ೆ nೆ'ೕದನ 16 ೇ(ೆಂದರು, ಪ ?•@ (ೋಪ(ೆ4 FೋHಾಗ ಪಂnಾ\R ಮುಂದೂಡ#ಾ\ತು. ನಮA ಮvೆN ಇದl /ರುಕನುP ಾ>ೇ ಸ ಪ`?(ೊಳEಲು ಸೂ]ಸ#ಾ\ತು.
ನಂತರ, ಾಂಕ: 24.06.2019 ರಂದು ಸುMಾರು 8:20 ಗಂUೆ ೆಳ ೆg ಾನು, ನನP ತಂHೆ :ಾ\, ನನP ]ಕ4ಪ9ಂ ರು, 4 ಜನ ಸಂಬಂsಕOಾದ ಸ@ೕx ೌಡ, aೇಖL ೌಡ, ಮು OಾಮಯNನವರು ಒcV ೆ Xೇ ನನP ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಕD?(ೊಡಲು ಬಂದರು, ಆಗ ನನP ಅ:ೆR, Mಾವ, &ಾ.nೈತ; ಮತುR ನನP ಗಂಡ ನನPನುP ಮ ೆ ಒಳ ೆ /ಡHೆ, ನಮA ೆP#ಾ$ ಅ>ಾಚN ಶಬlಗDಂದ ಮನಬಂದಂ:ೆ ಂ ?, ತ ಣ>ೆ ಇ $ಂದ ಗ-•ಸ ದl $ ಮA hೕ#ೆ ೕ ದೂರು ೕಡುವ HಾW ನಮAನುP Fೆದ ? ಮತುR ನನP wೊ:ೆ ಬಂ ರುವ ಸಂಬಂsಕರು, ಮತುR ನನP ತಂHೆ- :ಾ\ಯವರ hೕ#ೆ ನನP ಗಂಡ ಮತುR ಅವನ ಮ ೆಯವರು Hೌಜ-ನNವನುP ನ&ೆ?ದುl, ನನP ತಂHೆ- :ಾ\ಯವರು ಮ ೆಯವರು / ಾವ ನಮA ಹುಡುWಯನುP ಇ#ೆ$ /ಟುVFೋಗು:ೆRೕ>ೆ ಸಂXಾರ Mಾ`ಸು@RೕOೋ ಅಥ>ಾ /ೕ ೆ /`RೕOೋ ಮ ೆ Xೇ ದುl ಅಂತ FೇಳY@Rರು>ಾ ೆg, ತ ಣ ನನP ಅ:ೆR ಮತುR Mಾವನವರು ದಪ-. ೆ nೆ'ೕದನ (ೊಟುV ಇ $ಂದ :ೊಲಗುವಂ:ೆ ನP Fೆಂಡ@ ಮತುR ಆ(ೆಯ ಮ ೆಯವ ೆ FೇಳY ಎಂದು ಏರು ಧ ಯ $ ಕೂ ಾ`ದರು. ತ ಣ>ೇ ಏ(ಾಏ5 ನನP ಗಂಡ ಾದ o;ೕ ದಪ-.ರವರು ನಮAನುP Fೆದ ? ನಮAನುP ಅವರ ಮ ೆ\ಂದ ಗ-•ಸ ದlOೆ :ಾನು ಷವನುP ಕು`ದು ಇ#ೆ$ೕ Xಾಯುವ HಾW 5ರುಚು:ಾR ಕೂ ಾಡು:ಾR ಅ#ೆ$ ಇದl ಒಂದು ಾಟK ನ $ದl ದ;ವವನುP ಕು`ದು, ]ೕOಾಡು:ಾR ಆಸ9:ೆ;ಯ}ತ ಓ`ದ. ಪ ?•@ಯಲೂ$ ವN:ಾNಸ>ಾದ (ಾರಣ ಾವ ಆಸ9:ೆ;ಯತR FೊರUೆವ . ಆಸ9:ೆ;ಯ $ ನಮAನುP ಒಳ ೆ /ಡ ಲ$, ಆತಂಕ ಂದ ಮ ೆ ೆ =ಂ@ರುWHೆವ , ನಮ ೆ ದಪ-. ಮತುR ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು Mಾ`ದುl ಪ"ವ-•ೕ"ತ ಸಂಚು ಮತುR ಾಟಕ>ೆಂದು @Dಯ ಲ$.
ತದನಂತರ, ನನP Mಾವನವರ ಕಟವ@-ಗiಾದ &ಾ.>ೆಂಕUೇx, ಾ ೇ ೌಡ ಮತುR @h† ೌಡರವರು ನಮA ತಂHೆ ೆ ' ೈK ಮು{ಾಂತರ ಕOೆMಾ`, ೕನು, ಮA ಪ@P ಮತುR ಮA ಮಗಳY Mಾತ;>ೇ ˆೈ ಾ07 ಮಂಜು ಾಥ;ವರ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಾಂಕ: 27-06-2019 ರಂದು ಬರ ೇ(ೆಂದು Fಾಗೂ Oಾ" ೆ ?ದb>ೆಂದು @D?ರು:ಾROೆ Fಾಗೂ ಾವ ಗಳY ಏನೂ Mಾತ ಾಡHೆ hೕಲ4ಂಡವರು ತ6ಮ ಅಸಮvಾನಗಳನುP FೊರFಾಕಲು ಅನುವ Mಾ`(ೊಟV $ Oಾ" ೆ Hಾ ಸುಗಮ>ಾಗುತRHೆ ಎಂದರು, ಅದನುP ಾವ ನಂ/Hೆವ .
ಅದರಂ:ೆ, ಾಂಕ: 27-06-2019 ರಂದು ಾನು, ನನP ತಂHೆ, :ಾ\ Fಾಗೂ ಕುಟುಂಬದ XೆPೕ=ತOಾದ ಮು OಾಮಯN ಎಲ$ರೂ hೕಲ4ಂಡ ˆೈ ಾ07 ಮಂಜು ಾ~ರವರ ಮ ೆ ೆ FೋWHೆlವ . ಅ $ &ಾ.>ೆಂಕUೇx, ಾ ೇ ೌಡ ಮತುR @h† ೌಡರವರು, ˆೈ ಾ07 ಮಂಜು ಾ~, ದಪ-., ಆತನ ತಂHೆ, ಆತನ ಅಕ4 Fಾಜ ದlರು. ಾನು, ನಮA ತಂHೆ-:ಾ\, ನಮA ಕುಟುಂಬದ XೆPೕ=ತOಾದ ಮು OಾಮಯN jಾರೂ ಸಹ Mಾತ ಾಡ ಾರHೆಂದು 'ದ#ೇ :ಾ5ೕತು 17 Mಾ`ದರು. ಅದರಂ:ೆ ಏಕಪ >ಾW ನಡವD ನ&ೆ?ದರು. ನನ ೆ ಒಂದು ಾಂ" ಬOೆದು(ೊಡುವಂ:ೆ FೇDದರು ಮತುR ನಂತರದ $ ಸಂ:ೋಷ>ಾW ಮತುR ಅ ೊPೕನN>ಾW ಾಳYವಂ:ೆ FೇDದರು. ಅದರಂ:ೆ ಪಂnಾ\R ಮು(ಾRಯ>ಾ\ತು. ಆದOೆ ನಂತರದ $ ಪಂnಾ\Rಯ $ ಆದ ಾ-ಯಕ Fೊರ:ಾW ಚಟುವc(ೆ ನ&ೆ\ತು. ನಂತರದ $ ಮತುR ಖ]ತ>ಾW 13-06-2022 ರ $ @D Hೆlೕ ೆಂದOೆ, hೕಲ4ಂಡವರು ಸಂಚು, •ತೂ ನ&ೆ? ಸುಳYE ಆ•ಷಗಳನುP - ಒ`-, :ೋ (ೆ ೆ Mಾತ; ಪಂnಾ\Rಯಂ:ೆ ನ&ೆ?ದುl ಅದರ ಜ ಉHೆlೕಶ ನನPನುP ಮತುR ನನP ಕುಟುಂಬದವರನುP ಸುಳYE, 'ೕಸ ಾರರು ಮತುR ಾನು ನ&ೆ:ೆ ೆಟVವiೆಂದು /ಂ/?, ನನP :ೇwೋವvೆ Mಾಡಲು Hಾಖ#ೆಗಳನುP ಸೃ--Vಸುವ ಪ"ವ-•ೕ"ತ ಕೃತN Mಾ`ರು:ಾROೆ Fಾಗೂ ಸೃ--V?ದ Hಾಖ#ೆಗಳನುP (ೋr- ೆ Fಾಜರುಪ`?ರು:ಾROೆ.
ನನP ತಂHೆ-:ಾ\ ಸುMಾರು 5 (ೋc ರೂ•ಾ\ ಖಚು-Mಾ` ನನ ೆ ]ನP, ೆDE, ವಜ; >ೈqsÀÆgÀå (ೊcVದುl ಮತುR >ೈಭವಯುತ>ಾW ಮದು>ೆ Mಾ`(ೊcVರು:ಾROೆ. ಅಲ$Hೆ ನನP ಗಂಡನ ಕ&ೆಯವರು ]ನP- ೆDE ವಜ; >ೈqsÀÆgÀåಗಳನುP ಸುMಾರು 50 ಲŠಷ ೆ#ೆ ಾಳYವ ದನುP ಉಡು ೊOೆಯ ಾPW ನನ ೆ (ೊcVರು:ಾROೆ, ಅದನುP ಾನು ನನP ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆಯ#ೆ$ೕ /ಟುVಬಂ ರು:ೆRೕ ೆ.
ಈ =ಂHೆ ದಪ-. ನನ ೆ ಹಗಲು-Oಾ@; ಎನPHೆ ' ೈK ಕOೆ Mಾಡು:ಾR ಸಂHೇಶ ಕಳY=ಸುತR ತನ ೆ `˜ೕ - ಕೂಡ#ೇ ೇ(ೆಂದು ೆದ ? ದುಂ ಾಲು, ಒತRಡ Fೇರು@Rದl. ಷ ಕು`ಯುವ HಾW Fೆದ ಸು@Rದl. ಆ ಬ ೆg ಅವ ೆ (ೊಟV ' ೈK ‰ೕ0 ನಕಲು Hಾಖ#ೆ ಅಂದOೆ 07/08/2018-27/08/2018 ವOೆ ೆ ಕಂಡುಬರುವ ದು, ಏ ೆಂದOೆ ಾನು hೕ#ೆ FೇDದಂ:ೆ ದಪ-. ಮದN•ಾನವNಸ , ದೂಮ;•ಾನ ವNಸ , ?„ೕ#ೋಲ ಮತುR ?„ೕ ವNಸ Fಾಗೂ ಸುಳYE ಾರ ಮತುR ನಯವಂಚಕ, ಅದಲ$Hೆ ಅತNಂತ ೇಜ>ಾ ಾl , ಕೂ; , ಕೃತ ಅ ಾಗ ೕಕ ವN5Rƒಂದು ಕಂಡುಬರುತRHೆ.
ನನ ೆ ಮಧNವ@-ಗಳY ಮತುR ದಪ-. @D?Hೆlೕ ೆಂದOೆ, ದಪ-.ನ ತಂHೆ- :ಾ\ ಮತುR ಆತನ ಅಕ4 ೆ Mಾತ; ಅಸMಾvಾನ ಇದುl, nೆ'ೕಧನ(ೆ4 ಒ:ಾR\? ಮತುR ಒತRಡ Fೇರು@RHಾlOೆಂದು Fಾಗೂ ಅದ(ೆ4 ಮ:ೊRಂದು (ಾರಣ ನನP ತಂHೆ ದಪ-. ೆ Hೆಹ ಯ $ ಬಂಗ#ೆ•ಂದನುP :ೆ ೆ?(ೊಡ ೇ(ೆಂದು ಒ:ಾRಯ Mಾ`ದುl, ಅದರ ಸೂ ™ ಪ;XಾRಪ ಪಂnಾ\@ಯ $ (ಾಣಬಹುದು. ನ ೊPಂ ೆಈ nಾರ FೇDದುl, ನನP ಅ:ೆR, ಾ ಮತುR ನನP ಗಂಡ ಅವರು (ೊಟV Hಾಖ#ೆಯ $ Hೆಹ ಯ $ರುವ ಮ ೆ ೆ ಮತುR ಆš ೆ ನ Pಂದ ಾ` ೆ (ೇDರು:ಾROೆ.
18ನನP Mಾವನವರ #ೆ(ಾ4nಾರ>ೆ ೇOೆ ಇರುತRHೆ. ದಪ-. ಅಡಕತR ಯ $ ?54ದಂ:ಾWದುl, hೕಲ4ಂಡವರು ತಮAನುP :ಾವ ರ_?(ೊಳEಲು ಮತುR ನನP hೕ#ೆ ಅತNಂತ - ಗುರುತರ ಆOೋಪ Mಾ` ನನP ೈ@ಕ:ೆ ಮತುR nಾ ತ;›ದ ಬ ೆg ಗಂœೕರ>ಾದ ಸುಳYE - ಆOೋಪಗಳನುP Fೊ ?, Xಾ_ಯನುP ಸೃ--Vಸಲು ಸಂಚು ಮತುR •ತೂ Mಾ`ರುವ ದು ಸ9ಷV>ಾWರುತRHೆ.
=ೕWರು>ಾ ೆg, ನಮA ಉಭಯ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ಮನXಾRಪಗಳY ಇದlರೂ ಸಹ, ಾನು, ನನP ಗಂಡ ದಪ-.ರವರು ತುಂ ಾ ಒiೆEಯವರು ಎಂದು ನಂ/, ಅವರು ಾಂಕ:23.11.2018 ರ $ Hೆಹ ಯ $HಾlOೆಂಬ ಅಂಶ @Dದ ನಂತರ ಾನು (ಆ ವಸ ನಮA ಮದು>ೆಯ 'ದಲ ೇ >ಾ---(ೋತ7ವ) ಅವ ೆ ಆಶ^ಯ-ಮೂ`ಸ ೇ(ೆಂಬ ಉHೆlೕಶ ಂದ Hೆಹ ೆ ಮvಾNಹP 1:20ರ ˆೈr ೆ Fೊರಟು ಅHೇ ನ ಸಂwೆ 7:00 ಗಂUೆ ಮ ೆ ತಲು•ದುl, ಾನು XೆಕುN c ಮು{ಾಂತರ ನನP ಗಂಡ ಮ ೆಯ $ರುವ ದನುP ಖ]ತಪ`?(ೊಂಡು, ಾನು ಮ ೆಯ ಬD FೋW (ಾ ಂ• ೆK ಒ@Rದರೂ ಸಹ ನನP ಪ@ಯು ಾWಲು :ೆOೆಯ ಲ$ ಮತುR ಉHೆlೕಶಪ"ವ-ಕ>ಾW ಮ ೆ\ಂದ Fೊರಬರ ಲ$. ನನP ಗಂಡನು ಅವರ ತಂHೆ-:ಾ\ ೆ ಹಲ>ಾರು ಾ ಕOೆMಾ`ದುl ಮತುR ಕOೆಗಳY ಬಂ ದುl, ಅವರುಗDಂದ ನನP ತವರು ಮ ೆಯವ ೆ ಕOೆಗಳY ಬಂ ದುl, Fೇ ಾದರೂ Mಾ` ಕೂಡ#ೇ ಾನು Hೆಹ \ಂದ >ಾಪ ಊ ೆ ಬರುವಂ:ೆ ಒತRಡ ಮತುR ೆದ (ೆ Fಾ5ದರು. ನನP ಗಂಡ ಮಧNOಾ@; ಅಂದOೆ 12:40 ಎ.ಎಂ. ೆ ಾನು ಮಲWರುವ HಾW Ÿಾ ?, ಮ ೆ ಾWಲು :ೆOೆದು, ಾWಲು Fಾ5(ೊಂಡು ಾಬ \ಂದ ಓ`ರು:ಾR ೆ. ಈ ಎಲ$ವನೂP :ಾವ ಗಳY (ಾK `ೕUೆK7 :ೆ ೆ?Hಾಗ Xಾ/ೕ:ಾಗುವ ದು. ಆ ನ Oಾ@; ಆ ಚDಯ $ ೆಳWನ wಾವ 2 ಗಂUೆಯವOೆ ೆ (ಾಯುತR#ೇ ಇHೆl, (ಾರಣ ದಪ-. @ರುW ಮ ೆ ೆ ಬರಬಹುHೆಂದು. ನಂತರ, ನನP ತಂHೆ:ಾ\ ನನ ೆ ‰ೕ0 ಕOೆ Mಾ` ತ ಣ>ೇ =ಂ@ರುW ಬರುವಂ:ೆ @D?ದುl, ಅದರಂ:ೆ ಾಂಕ:24.11.2018 ರ ೆಳ ೆg 7:00 ಗಂUೆ ೆ ˆೈrನ $ ಊ ೆ ಬಂ ರು:ೆRೕ ೆ. ನನ ೆ ಅ $ಯವOೆಗೂ Oಾ"ೕjಾಗುವ HಾW ನಂ/(ೆ ಹುcV?ದುl, ಮತುR ತಪ 9Hಾ ೆ ಎiೆ ರುವ ದು, ಾನು ಅವರುಗಳ hೕ#ೆ (ಾನೂನು ಕ;ಮ :ೆ ೆದು(ೊಳE ಾರHೆಂಬ ಉHೆlೕಶ>ಾWರುತRHೆ.
ಾನು ತಮA $ ಮನ Mಾಡುವ Hೇ ೆಂದOೆ, ನನ ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟV ವಸುRಗಳY ಅವರ ಮ ೆಯ#ೆ$ೕ ಇರುತRHೆ. =ೕWರು>ಾ ೆg ದಪ-.ರವರು ಅವರ :ಾ\, ತಂHೆ ಮತುR ಅಕ4ನವರ ಸಂಚು, •ತೂ Mಾ` ಸುಳYE ಮತುR ಕಟುVಕ ೆಗಳನುP ಕcV, ನನP hೕ#ೆ MಾನN (ೌಟುಂ/ಕ ಾNjಾಲಯದ $ ಎಂ.?. 1660/2021 ಪ;ಕರಣವನುP ನಮA >ಾಹ nೆ'ೕಧನ(ೆ4 Hಾಖ ?ದುl, ಸದ ಪ;ಕರಣ nಾರ ೆ ೆ ಬಂ ದುl, hೕಲ4ಂಡವರು ಸುಳYE Hಾಖ#ೆ ಸೃ--V Mಾ`ದುl, :ಾ:
10/06/2022 ರ $ ನನP ಗಮನ(ೆ4 ಬಂ ರುತRHೆ. ಅದರ ಗಂœೕರ:ೆ ಾಂಕ: 12/06/2022 ರ $ @D ರುತRHೆ. ದುರುHೆlೕಶದ ಬ ೆg ಸ9ಷV>ಾW 13/06/2022 'ರ @Dದು(ೊಂ&ೆನು. ಇ¡ೆV#ಾ$ ನ&ೆದರೂ ಸಹ ಾನು ದೂರು (ೊಡ ರುವ ದ(ೆ4 (ಾರಣ, hೕಲ4ಂಡವರ ಸುಳYE ಆaಾ ಸ ೆ ಮತುR 19 ನಮA HಾಂಪತNವನುP ಉDಸುವ ಸದುHೆlೕಶ>ಾWರುತRHೆ. ಾಂಕ:18/06/2022 ರಂದು ಶ ಾಥಪ ರ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ $ ದೂರು ೕ`ದುl, ಅದರಂ:ೆ ಎ0.?.ಆL ನಂಬL 222/2022 ರ $ ದೂರು Hಾಖ#ಾWದುl, ಶ ಾಥಪ ರ ೕ?ನವರು Hೊಡ-ಬiಾEಪ ರದ ಸ¢-01 (ೇಂದ;ದ $ ಈ ನ ಾಂಕ:-28/06/2022 ರಂದು (ೌ 7 ಂ• ೆ FಾಜOಾಗುವಂ:ೆ ೋcೕ wಾ Mಾ`ದುl, ದಪ-. ರವರು (ೌ 7 ಂ• ೆ FಾಜOಾಗHೇ ಇದುlದ ಂದ ಈ ನ ಪ ನಃ ಾ ೆ ೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರನುP ೕಡು@Rದುl, hೕಲ4ಂಡವರು ನನ ೆ @Dಯದಂ:ೆ ಕಲಂ 406, 409, 420, 468, 469, 471, 498-J, 120© L¦¹ jÃvÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A 3 & 4 `.•.ಆŠV ಅ` ಅಪOಾಧ Mಾ`ರು:ಾROೆ. (ಾರಣ ನನP ಗಂಡ, ಅ:ೆR, Mಾವ, ಾ ಎಲ$ರೂ ಾನು ಷ4ಳಂಕ, ಆತA ೌರವವ ಳE, ಆತAXಾ_ ೆ ಅನುಗುಣ>ಾW ನ&ೆಯುವ ಸnಾ^ ತ;› ಮತುR ಸನPಡ:ೆಯ ಹುಡುW ಎಂದು ೊ@Rದುl, ಅದನುP ರ_ಸುವ ಜ>ಾ ಾl ಅವ Wದlರೂ ಸಹ ಅವರು Hೊ;ೕಹ>ೆಸW, ನನPನುP nಾ ತ;›=ೕನಳY ಎಂದು /ಂ/? 'ೕಸ Mಾ`ದುl, Hೊ;ೕಹ>ೆಸWದುl ಸುಳYE Hಾಖ#ೆಗಳY ಮತುR FೇD(ೆಗಳನುP ಸೃ--V?, ಅದನುP ಸತN>ೆಂದು (ೋc-ನ ಮತುR ಪಂಚರ ಮುಂHೆ Fಾಜರುಪ`? ನನP :ೇwೋವvೆ Mಾ` ನನ ೆ 'ೕಸMಾ`ರು:ಾROೆ. ಅಲ$Hೇ (ೋc-ನ ಮುಂHೆ ನನ ೆ (ಾನೂ ನ ೕ@ ?ಗ ೇ(ಾದ, ಾNಯಯುತ>ಾದ ಪ Fಾರ, ಾNಯ ಮತುR ರ ೆ ೆ ಧ(ೆ4jಾWರುತRHೆ. ಆದl ಂದ hೕಲ4ಂಡ ದಪ-. (ೆ.ಎಂ /0 #ೇr. (ೆ.ಎK. ಮಂಜು ಾ~, ಪ ಷ9ಲ:ಾ (ೋಂ #ೇr.(ೆ.ಎK. ಮಂಜು ಾ~ Fಾಗೂ &ಾ. nೈತ; (ೋಂ &ಾ. ಸೂರu ರವರುಗಳ ರುದb (ಾನೂನು ಕ;ಮ (ೈ ೊಳE ೇ(ೆಂದು (ೋರು:ೆRೕ ೆ.
If afore-narrated facts and replies given by the complainant to all the proceedings from 2021 to 2022 when juxtaposed with the impugned complaint, the unmistakable inference that can be drawn is gross misuse and abuse of the provisions of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act by the complainant. Not a single allegation of demand of dowry or cruelty as is necessary under Section 498A IPC was, at any point in time, projected by the complainant. All that was done all along was petty grievances between the husband and 20 the wife were projected, which by no means can be construed to be cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC. If further investigation is permitted to be continued against petitioners 2 and 3, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR1 wherein it is held as follows:
"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.
13. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (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 1 2022 SCC Online SC 162 21 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 Act46 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 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-AIPC 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-AIPC 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 grand-fathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested."22
15. Further in Preeti Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 667, it has also been observed:-
"32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498AIPC 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 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 498Aas 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 23 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 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 & Anr. Vs. State of UP & Anr. (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. Raovs. L.H.V. Prasad & Ors. 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 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 24 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:-
"6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial dispute sand 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 section498A 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.
2519. 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 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-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
2622. 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) This would be against petitioners 2 and 3 who are mother-in-law and sister-in-law who have nothing to do with the squabble between the husband and the wife.
9. Insofar as the 1st petitioner, the husband is concerned, even against him all that is projected up to registration of complaint is grievance and no cruelty is alleged and no demand of dowry is projected. Long after the proceedings in the matrimonial case, after having appeared and on the verge of its closure, when the issue was referred to settlement, comes the impugned complaint. Though the complaint is a well drafted one, but contents of it are completely countered to what has been projected for close to 18 months in the matrimonial case. Though merely because the 27 husband has filed a matrimonial case and the wife later registers a crime under Section 498A IPC would lead to its obliteration is not the law, but in the peculiar facts of this case, when the matrimonial case had progressed to a large extent and the settlement talks were on, the impugned complaint comes which is second in line, as the first one has resulted in a non-cognizable report terming it to be a family dispute. Therefore, in these peculiar facts if further proceedings are permitted to continue against the husband, even it would run foul of the judgment of a Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of ABHISHEK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH2 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
"13. Instances of a husband's family members filing a petition to quash criminal proceedings launched against them by his wife in the midst of matrimonial disputes are neither a rarity nor of recent origin. Precedents aplenty abound on this score. We may now take note of some decisions of particular relevance. Recently, in Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v. State of Bihar [(2022) 6 SCC 599], this Court had occasion to deal with a similar situation where the High Court had refused to quash a FIR registered for various offences, including Section 498A IPC. Noting that the foremost issue that required determination was whether allegations made against the in-laws were general omnibus allegations which would be liable to be quashed, this Court referred to earlier decisions wherein concern was expressed over the misuse of Section 498A IPC and the increased tendency to 2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083 28 implicate relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes. This Court observed that false implications by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial disputes, if left unchecked, would result in misuse of the process of law. On the facts of that case, it was found that no specific allegations were made against the in-laws by the wife and it was held that allowing their prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws would result in an abuse of the process of law. It was also noted that a criminal trial, leading to an eventual acquittal, would inflict severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise ought to be discouraged.
14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand [(2010) 7 SCC 667], this Court noted that the tendency to implicate the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon in complaints filed under Section 498A IPC. It was observed that 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, as allegations of harassment by husband's close relations, who were living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided, would add an entirely different complexion and such allegations would have to be scrutinised with great care and circumspection.
15. Earlier, in Neelu Chopra v. Bharti [(2009) 10 SCC 184], this Court observed that the mere mention of statutory provisions and the language thereof, for lodging a complaint, is not the 'be all and end all' of the matter, as what is required to be brought to the notice of the Court is the particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in the commission of that offence. These observations were made in the context of a matrimonial dispute involving Section 498A IPC.
16. Of more recent origin is the decision of this Court in Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of 2023, decided on 08.08.2023) on the legal principles applicable apropos Section 482 Cr. P.C. Therein, it was observed that when an accused comes before the High Court, invoking either the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.29
P.C. or the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed, essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances, the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not as, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, to try and read between the lines.
17. In Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court had set out, by way of illustration, the broad categories of cases in which the inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P.C. could be exercised. Para 102 of the decision reads as follows:
'102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.30
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.'
18. Applying the aforestated edicts to the case on hand, we may take note of certain glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies. Though Bhawna had earlier alleged that her mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, and her brother-in-law, Abhishek, had taken away all her jewellery after her marriage on the pretext of safekeeping, she specifically stated in her deposition before the Family Court, Narsinghpur, in Civil Suit No. 153A of 2015, that her entire stridhan jewellery was with Nimish and in 31 spite of repeated demands, he was not returning it to her.
Further, during her cross-examination therein, she admitted that she had made a complaint to the High Court against Abhishek. The complaint was styled as an anonymous one, but Bhawna voluntarily owned up to being its author. This aspect bears out her animosity against her in-laws and more particularly, Abhishek.
19. The most significant aspect to be taken note of presently is that Bhawna admittedly parted ways with her matrimonial home and her in-laws in February, 2009, be it voluntarily or otherwise, but she did not choose to make a complaint against them in relation to dowry harassment till the year 2013. Surprisingly, FIR No. 56 dated 09.02.2013 records that the occurrence of the offence was from 02.07.2007 to 05.02.2013, but no allegations were made by Bhawna against the appellants after she left her matrimonial home in February, 2009. Significantly, Bhawna got married to Nimish on 02.07.2007 at Indore and went to Mumbai with him on 08.07.2007. Her interaction with her in-laws thereafter seems to have been only during festivals and is stated to be about 3 or 4 times. Sourabh, an architect, was stationed at Delhi since the year 2007 and no specific allegation was ever made against him by Bhawna. In fact, she merely made a general allegation to the effect that he also tortured her mentally and physically for dowry. No specific instance was cited by her in that regard or as to how he subjected her to such harassment from Delhi. Similarly, Abhishek became a judicial officer 6 or 7 months after her marriage and seems to have had no occasion to be with Bhawna and Nimish at Mumbai. His exposure to her was only when she came to visit her in-laws during festivals. Surprisingly, Bhawna alleges that at the time of his own marriage, Abhishek demanded that Bhawna and her parents should provide him with a car and Rs. 2 lakhs in cash. Why he would make such a demand for dowry, even if he was inclined to commit such an illegality, from his sister-in-law at the time of his own marriage is rather incongruous and difficult to comprehend. Further, the fact that Bhawna confessed to making a vicious complaint against Abhishek to the High Court clearly shows that her motives were not clean insofar as her brother-in-law, Abhishek, is concerned, and she clearly wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws. The allegation levelled by Bhawna against her mother-in-law, Kusum Lata, 32 with regard to how she taunted her when she wore a maxi is wholly insufficient to constitute cruelty in terms of Section 498A IPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. For all the aforesaid reasons, permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in Crime No.90 of 2022 pending before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bangalore District stand quashed.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2023 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bkp/CT:SS