Karnataka High Court
Shambhav Jitendra Chauhan vs State Of Karnataka on 13 September, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on :26.07.2024
Pronounced on :13.09.2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8837 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9903 OF 2023
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8837 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SHIVANKARI SINGHI
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
D/O. SHRI. JITENDRA CHIMANLAL CHAUHAN,
W/O. SHRI. PRATEEK SANDEEP SINGHI,
RESIDING AT SUNDARVAN EPITOME,
B-1102 AND 1202,
OPP. STAR BAZAAR, SATELLITE
AHMEDABAD - 380 015
GUJARAT, INDIA
2. VENU JITENDRA CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
W/O SHRI JITENDRA CHIMANLAL CHAUHAN,
RESIDING AT 7, SANIDHYA BUNGLOWS
(KRUPESH SOCIETY), NEAR BILLESHWAR MAHADEV,
NEXT TO NISHANT -1, SHYAMAL CITY GOLD LANE,
SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD - 380 015
GUJARAT INDIA.
2
3. JITENDRA CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
S/O SHRI. CHIMANLAL CHAUHAN,
RESIDING AT 7, SANIDHYA BUNGLOWS
(KRUPESH SOCIETY), NEAR BILLESHWAR MAHADEV,
NEXT TO NISHANT -1, SHYAMAL CITY GOLD LANE,
SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD - 380 015
GUJARAT, INDIA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR,
BELLANDUR POLICE STATION,
MARATHAHALLI SUB-DIVISION,
37, SARJAPUR - MARATHAHALLI ROAD,
AMBLIPURA, PWD QUARTERS, 1ST SECTOR,
BELLANDUR, BENGALURU - 560 103
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
2. SHEETAL SAWARTHIA CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O SHRI. SHAMBHAV JITENDRA CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT NO. 132, ASTER TOWERS-1,
3RD FLOOR, EMBASSY PRISTINE APARTMENT,
BELLANDUR, IBLUR VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 103
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT.JAYNA KOTHARI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NAVEEN CHANDRA V., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING CR.NO.188/2023
DATED 17.06.2023 (FIR) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 34, 498-A
OF THE IPC AND SEC.3, 4 OF D.P ACT (ANNEXURE-A) WHICH HAS
BEEN REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 THAT HAVE BEEN
INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.06.2023
OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-B) AND ALL CONSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE XLI - 41ST A.C.M.M CORUT NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU
CITY WHICH ARE PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.9903 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SHAMBHAV JITENDRA CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O SRI JITENDRA CHIMANLAL CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT 7, SANIDHYA BUNGLOWS
(KRUPESH SOCIETY)
NEAR BILLESHWAR MAHADEV
NEXT TO NISHANT-1
SHYAMALAL CITY GOLD LANE
SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD - 380 015
GUJARAT, INDIA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR
BELLADNUR POLICE STATION
MARATHAHALLI SUB-DIVISION
37, SARJAPUR -MARATHAHALLI ROAD
AMBLIPURA, PWD QUARTERS 1ST SECTOR
BELLANDUR, BENGALURU - 560 103
4
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
2. SHEETAL SAWARTHIA CHAUHAN
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
W/O SRI SHAMBHAV JITENDRA CHAUHAN
RESIDING AT NO.132
ASTER TOWER-1
3RD FLOOR, EMBASSY PRISTINE APARTMENT
BELLANDUR, IBLUR VILLAGE
BENGALURU - 560 103
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R-1;
SMT.JAYNA KOTHARI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NAVEEN CHANDRA V., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING CR.NO.188/2023
DATED 17.06.2023 (FIR) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.506, 34, 498-A
OF IPC 1860 R/W SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT 1961 (ANNEXURE A)
WHICH HAS BEEN REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 THAT
HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLIANT DATED
17.06.2023 OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE B) AND ALL
CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE XLI-41st ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY
WHICH ARE PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 26.07.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
5
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Accused No.1 is the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.9903 of
2023; accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are the petitioners in Criminal
Petition No.8837 of 2023. Accused 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Crime No.188
of 2023 registered by the 2nd respondent/complainant, in both the
petitions under Sections 498A, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Sections,
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act' for short) are respectively husband, mother-in-law,
father-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant. They will be
referred to in this order as per their ranking obtaining in Crime
No.188 of 2023. The petitioners are before this Court calling in
question initiation of proceedings by the complainant/wife in the
aforesaid crime. Since both the petitions arise out of single crime,
they are taken up together and considered by this common order.
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The 2nd respondent/complainant and accused No.1 get
married on 06-07-2019. It is the allegation that during the time of
6
marriage huge dowry was demanded by the accused Nos. 2 and 3
parents of accused No.1. The relationship between accused No.1
and the complainant flounders barely a month after the marriage. It
appears that accused No.1 had meted out certain tortures upon the
complainant/wife. In the month of October, 2021 it is the averment
in the complaint that the complainant was sent back to her parents'
house, as she has protested of the husband being in touch his ex-
girl friend. It is later on 07-03-2023 the complainant initially seeks
to approach the Women Cell with a complaint and the Police then
register an NCR on the score that it was the problem between
husband and the wife. Later on 16-03-2023 the complainant
registers a complaint before the Karnataka State Commission for
Women. She was advised by the Commission to file a complaint
before the jurisdictional Police. Then emerges the impugned
complaint on 17-06-2023, which becomes a crime in Crime No.188
of 2023 for offences punishable as afore-quoted. The wife has also
filed a case invoking Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act in Criminal Miscellaneous No.175 of 2023.
The impugned registration of crime has driven the accused to this
Court in the present petitions. A coordinate Bench of this Court on
7
13-10-2023 granted an interim order of stay and the same is in
subsistence even as on today.
3. Heard Sri Shravanth Arya Tandra, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions, Sri P.Thejesh,
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.1 and Smt. Jayna Kothari, learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/complainant.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
contend that there are no allegations against the accused that
would touch upon any of the ingredients of offence punishable
either under Section 498A or 506 of the IPC. He would submit that
marital discard or minor dispute between the husband and wife is
projected by the wife to become an offence under Section 498A of
the IPC. He would seek to place reliance upon several judgments of
the Apex court all of which have held that the wife drawing every
member of the family into the web of crime for an offence under
Section 498A should be curbed.
8
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Smt. Jayna Kothari,
representing the 2nd respondent would vehemently refute the
submissions to contend that the husband is virtually living with
another woman. He has a child born from the said relationship.
This is an admitted fact. The parents have, apart from demanding
huge dowry and it being fulfilled, have meted out such torture when
complainant would question the act of the husband having illicit
relationship with another woman after marriage. She would contend
that all these are matters of trial and, therefore, the investigation in
the least should be permitted to be continued. It is always open to
the petitioners to avail all appropriate remedies at the relevant
point in time.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant
happening on 06-07-2019 is a matter of record. After facing huge
harassments at the matrimonial house, the complainant registers
9
the impugned crime. Since the entire issue has now sprung from
the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It
reads as follows:
"Dated: 17.06.2023
Bengaluru
To
The Police Inspector,
Bellandur Police Station,
37, Sarjapur-Marathahalli Rd,
Amblipura, 1st Sector, Bellandur,
Bengaluru 560103
Sir,
Sub: Complaint against (i) Shambhav Jitendra
Chauhan, (ii) Venu Chauhan, (iii) Jitendra Chimanlal
Chauhan, (iv) Shivankari Chauhan, all are available at
No.7, Sanidhya Bungalows (Krupesh Society) near
Billeshwar Mahadev, Next to Nishant-1, Shyamal City
Gold Lane, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380 015, Gujarat,
for acts of physical and mental harassment, assault,
attempt to murder, threat, extortion due to their greed
for dowry which are made penal under the provisions
of the Indian Penal Code and under the provisions of
the Dowry Prohibition Act - action thereof.
- - - -
1. I am the legally wedded wife of Shambhav, the first
named above. Venu Chauhan and Jitendra Chauhan, the second
and third named above are my mother-in-law and father-in-law
respectively. Shivankari, the fourth named above is my sister-
in-law. My marriage with Shambhav is an arranged marriage
and was performed on 06.07.2019 at The Sheraton Grand Hotel,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru..
2 At the time of marriage negotiations, my husband and
his family members projected themselves as an educated family
with no expectations of dowry etc., and clinched the marriage
alliance. Thereafter, Shambhav began to interact with me.
10
3. On 26.02.2019 betrothal ceremony was performed at
Hotel Crown Plaza, Ahmedabad. Prior to the engagement, my
mother-in-law gave a list of their family members and
demanded us to gift them all with gold items and to shower me
with good quantity of jewels. Though my family was
disappointed at such a demand, we were compelled to give gold
and diamond jewellery, silver articles etc., worth about
Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only). The following
items/jewels were given at the time of engagement:
(i) 11 gold coins weighing 8 gms, each and a gold chain
and pendant weighing 25 grams to Shambav, ii) 12 gold coins
weighing 81 grms each to other members of his family, (iii) 5
gold chains weighing 20 grms. Each to family members, (iv)
One large silver bowl, (v) Three Pens -one of them being
diamond studded, (vi) A pair of Diamond Cufflinks, (vii) Two
sets of Jewellery mother-in-law and sister-in-law, (viii)
Clothes/apparels and accessories to groom, (ix)
Dresses/apparels to family members, (x) Silver Boat, (xi) 32
Silver 100 Coins weighing 10 gms. each. This apart, my father-
in-law demanded and received from us a sum of Rs.6,50,000/-
(Rupees Six Lakhs Fifty Thousand only).
4. After the engagement, my husband and in-laws
demanded dowry of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore only)
and diamond jewellery. They gave a long list of gold items and
other costly gift items to be given to their relatives and friends
and to perform the marriage extravagantly at a Five Star Hotel
and to provide luxurious facilities and accommodation to all the
guests from their side/family. We were forced to heed to some
of the demands since wedding arrangements were already made
including printing and distribution of Wedding Invitation Cards
and that cancellation of marriage at that stage would cause
irreparable damage to our family honour and would also cause
psychological impact upon me. Accordingly, my father paid a
sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only) to my
husband through the cheque bearing No.000911 dated 07-07-
2019 drawn on HDFC Bank, Bengaluru. This apart, they also
demanded and received Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Lakhs only) in cash towards purchase of jewellery for my
mother-in-law and sister-in-law. The cheque though dated 07-
07-2019, was sent by post/courier few days prior to the
11
marriage while the cash was handed over to my father-in-law by
my father at our house in Bangalore.
5. On 06.07.2019, on the demands of my husband and
in-laws, my marriage came to be performed extravagantly at
Hotel Sheraton Grand, Bengaluru and at that time, the following
items/jewels/articles worth about 47,37,820/- (Rupees Forty
Seven Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty
only) were also given to them by my parents:
(i) 15 Gold chains weighing 20 grams each;
(ii) One 20gm. Gold coin;
(iii) 8 gold coins weighing 8 grams.
(iv) Set of gold and diamond Kurta buttons and
cufflink;
(v) One pair gold bangles weighing 70 grams.
(vi) Clothes/apparels, accessories and perfumes
(vi) Rs.1,00,000/- in cash;
(viii) One large silver bowl;
(ix) One silver Radha Krishna Swing;
(x) Other silver articles worth over Rs.3,00,000/-
(xi) 50 silver bars of 100 grams. each;
This apart, my mother-in-law demanded and received a
separate set of gold and gift items to be given to my sister-in-
law Shivankari's would-be in-laws family as by then she was
engaged and to get married to their son. My father also gave
me jewels worth about Rs. 80,50,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs
Fifty Thousand only) and spent over Rs. 30,00,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Lakhs only) towards the performance of marriage.
6. I joined my husband at the marital home immediately
after the marriage. My husband and in-laws began to harass me
12
right from the beginning of the marriage complaining that the
jewels that were given and performance of marriage did not
match to their status. My mother-in-law took away all my jewels
within three days of my entry into the marital home.
7. My husband and in-laws who were disappointed for not
getting more dowry, began to subject me to acts of mental and
physical torture by commenting on my looks, weight,
complexion etc., My sister-in-law began to taunt me on my
looks while stating that I have to undergo a plastic surgery to
look better. I came to be treated worse than a slave at home.
They began to completely isolate me in the family. Even though
there were servants at home, I was made to do most of the
household chores from early morning to late at night like
cooking, washing clothes, cleaning dishes, catering to their
needs and requirements. I was not invited/allowed to dine with
the rest of the family and had to eat alone after the rest of the
family finished their food. I was prevented from attending social
and close family functions and also forbade everyone including
the servants at home from talking and interacting with me. My
husband would take me in the car and drive rashly and
dangerously close to other cars with an intention to endanger
my life. He used to consume alcohol and publicly humiliate me
in front of his friends commenting on my appearance, looks etc.
Due to the instigation of my mother-in-law and sister- in-law,
my husband began to physically abuse me and stopped intimacy
with me.
8. In the month of August, 2019, my husband and in-laws
took me abroad. I was taken on the said trip only to extract
more money from my father and to utilize me as a maid. During
the trip, we stayed at Service Apartments and I was made to do
all the household chores of cooking, cleaning dishes and carry
their suit cases and serve them. In September 2019, while we
were in London, my mother-in-law and sister-in-law demanded
me to arrange 10000 Sterling Pounds through my relatives in
England and on my refusal to do so, I was severely insulted,
abused and harassed by them and was treated worse than a
slave for rest of the trip.
9. My mother-in-law and sister-in-law would pick up
quarrels on non- existent issues and abuse me physically and
mentally and also instigate my husband to do so and on such
13
instigation, my husband would routinely slap, punch, kick and
beat me up. I was most of the time confined to one room except
when I was ordered to do cleaning and cooking in other areas.
Due to my failure to get enough dowry, there was constant
instigation by my parents-in-law and sister-in-law to my
husband to desert me and get a better wife who wild match
their status and meet their dowry demands. Due to these
constant harassments, I developed anxiety and fear and and
began to get depressed.
10. At the time of my sister-in-law's wedding in
December, 2019, my husband and in-laws demanded and
received a diamond jewellery set, pearl necklace and gold chain
totally costing Rs. 13,15,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifteen
Thousand only). This was not for my benefit or for being held by
me but for the benefit of either my sister-in-law or mother-in-
law. In spite of the same, my father-in-law was not satisfied and
still continued to humiliate me and my parental family. Unable
to bear the mental and physical harassment by my husband and
in-laws, I had decided to take the extreme step but due to the
counseling of my parents, decided against the same since such
a step would cause more pain and misery to my parental family.
11. In the month of December, 2019, immediately after
my sister-in-law's wedding, my husband and in-laws called my
parents for a meeting at Ahmedabad and exhibited extreme
anger against them for not meeting their demands and
expectations. They abused and ill-treated my parents on the
score that a sum of 10,000 Sterling Pound was not arranged for
them in London and out-rightly declared that they do not want
me in the marital home anymore and asked my husband to
throw me out of the house and to marry someone else.
12. In the second week of February, 2020, my husband
who had come to Bangalore on work, abused me in front of my
friends and once again asked me to be his slave and to meet the
demands of his family immediately.
13. I conceived in December, 2020. My mother-in-law
with an intention to throw me out of the house and to get my
husband married to someone else to forcibly, got my pregnancy
terminated citing Covid pandemic and tried to send me off to my
parental home at Bengaluru.
14
14. In October, 2021, my in-laws encouraged my
husband to connect himself with his Ex-girl friend Druma Mehta
and for protesting the same, I was forcefully sent off to
Bangalore. Later, my husband came to my sister's house at
Bellandur, Bangalore and insulted, humiliated and abused me in
front of my sister's family and ordered me to be a slave of his
mother and sister. He forcefully left me behind in Berigaluru
stating that his mother and sister do not like me.
15. Around August, 2022, my mother-in-law demanded a
Fixed Deposit of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) from
my father and the said demand was not met. In September,
2022, my husband came to attend a wedding at J.W. Marriot
Hotel in Bengaluru and at that time, he intentionally abused and
humiliated me in front of my friends saying that I am ugly and
look like a bull- dog. Later when I joined him in the hotel room,
he physically assaulted me by grabbing my face and jaw tightly
and forcefully banged my head against the wall causing severe
physical and mental pain to me and threatened to divorce me if
we fail to comply with his mother's demand for payment of
Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only)
16. Thereafter. They constantly harassed me to either
comply with their demand for the payment of Rs.50,00,000/-
(Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) or to leave the marital home. They
black-mailed and psychologically destroyed me stating that they
have got black magic performed on me and that if I continue to
stay in the marital home, I would have a gory and miserable
death. My mother-in-law and sister-in-law did make attempts to
cause harm to my life. In one instance, while I bent down to
touch the feet of my mother-in-law on the staircase landing, she
tried to push me down the stair-case and in another instance,
my sister-in-law also made similar attempt and tried to nudge
and push me down from the staircase. On both the occasions, I
caught hold of the hand-railing to save myself.
17. My mother-in-law forced me to take up employment
and forcibly took away my earnings. My husband and in-laws
had absolutely no love, affection or concern for my health,
safety and well-being. Whenever I fell ill, they would not bother
to enquire or take me to a Doctor/Hospital and instead would
ask me to return back to my parental home at Bangalore.
15
18. My husband and in-laws conspired to throw me out of
the marital home and took me on a trip to Jim Corbett National
Park. My husband intentionally picked up fights on non-issues
and began to insult and humiliate me in front of his friends. He
declared that he does not wish to continue his marital
relationship with me and would not allow me to stay at the
marital home since my parents did not meet the demands of his
mother. He then ordered me to return to Bengaluru and also
warned that if I made any further attempts to return to the
marital home, he would harm my life. He then forcefully got my
ticket booked to Bengaluru and un-ceremoniously sent me back
to my parental home from the said trip itself. All my pleadings
and requests fell on his deaf ears and he then blocked me on
phone also.
19. My father and some relatives then took me to
Ahmedabad and pleaded with my husband and mother-in-law to
take me back into the marital home but they out-rightly refused
to accept me in the marital home. I was compelled to return to
my parental home and has now been living with my parents.
20. All my hopes and patience that good sense would
dawn upon my husband and in-laws and that they would change
and accept me in their family have gone in vain. My husband
and in-laws have harassed me mentally and physically due to
their greed for dowry and did not allow me to lead a peaceful
life since my parents could not fulfill their demands. They have
also retained all the gold and diamond jewellery given to me by
my parents before the wedding, at the time of the wedding and
after the wedding and all other dowry items such as gold, silver,
jewellery, other valuables and amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-
(Rupees One Crore Twenty Five Lakhs only).
21. I did not choose to file this complaint earlier to this
day despite being subjected to acts of cruelty day in and day out
by my husband and in-laws only with the sole object of keeping
the matrimonial Institution, least, any hasty action on my part
may destroy my marital life. It is so for the reason that I loved
my husband immensely and wanted to have a family with him
having burnt my fingers in my earlier marriage.
(a) Having now realised that there is no other go and that
my husband and other members of his family are more
16
interested in dowry rather than he making a living with me as
my loving and caring husband, I am constrained to file this
complaint for action needed, least, my husband who is ready to
marry for the third time, place the newly Wed in a position
similar to the one in which I was placed in the marital home and
spoil her life as well.
I, therefore, request your goodself to register my
complaint and initiate appropriate action against my husband
and in-laws for their criminal acts of physically and mentally
abusing me and harassing me and also making attempts to
cause harm to my life due to their greed for dowry and further
help me recover the gold and diamond jewels and other dowry
items and amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore
Twenty Five Lakhs only), render justice to me, for which act of
goodness on your part, I shall remain grateful to you.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(SHEETAL SAWARTHIA CHAUHAN)
aged 35 years
No.132, Aster Tower-I, 3rd Floor,
Embassy Pristine Apartments,
Bellandur,
Iblur Village,
Ph: 9886155488
Bengaluru-560 103"
The complainant narrates the incidents of demand and the amount
being transferred at intermittent intervals from the account of the
father of the complainant to the account of the husband. On two or
three occasions, the amount is also indicated. It runs to about a
crore and twenty-five lakhs apart from demand of dowry of two
crores. The narration goes on further that the husband has
17
meted out such torture to the complainant to meet dowry demand.
It is further narrated that after bringing it to the notice of the
parents of the husband about the relationship between the husband
and his ex-girl friend, the parents are said to have abused the
complainant. The further allegations are made which are in great
detail and the overt acts performed by each of the petitioners are
also narrated in the complaint. After registration of crime, all the
petitioners have knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject
petitions. The issue is whether investigation should be annulled in
the case at hand in the teeth of afore-said complaint.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners has urged several
contentions. The primary contention is that there is no prima facie
case made out against the petitioners and there has been gross
delay in registering the crime. The said submission is unacceptable,
as the complainant initially knocks at the doors of the Women's Cell
on 07-03-2023 wherein NCR is filed and later knocks at the doors of
the jurisdictional Police by registering a crime on 17-06-2023. This,
according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is gross delay,
which can be branded as neither delay nor gross delay. The events
18
that have been narrated in the case at hand have all been so clear
that it is indicative of the fact that there has been a demand of
dowry and in fulfillment of such demand, torture being meted out
against the wife. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are no
allegations that would require an investigation even in the least.
The contention that accused No.1 exhibiting cruelty by leaving with
another woman and having a child with her when brought to the
notice of accused Nos. 2 and 3 they feign ignorance which would
also require further proceedings in the case at hand. Whether this
would amount to cruelty as obtaining under Section 498A of the IPC
need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter.
9. Two of the High Courts, i.e., High Court of Madhya Pradesh
and High Court of Madras in answering a petition under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C. or against conviction have considered this issue and
held that it does amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC,
following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RUPALI
DEVI V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in (2019) 5 SCC
19
384. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in ACHIN PHULRE v.
STATE OF M.P.1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
8. Cruelty can be both physical and mental cruelty. The
impact of the physical cruelty suffered by the wife at
matrimonial home also affects the mental health of the wife and
may continue even though she is being driven away from the
matrimonial home or even if she willingly leaves her
matrimonial home due to the harassment or physical cruelty by
her husband or his relatives. The harassment and ill-treatment
for the reason of demand of dowry may cause continuous
emotional and psychological effect and trauma in the mind of
the wife, at her parental home also if she was forced to leave
her matrimonial home for that reason.
9. In the present case, there is a clear allegations of
marpeet and mental harassment/torture by the present
applicants for the reason that aggrieved wife could not bring
enough dowry. She has further alleged that demand for dowry
was also made at her parental house on 20.08.2020, when
petitioners No. 1 and 2 came to Sirali. The fact that the
applicants No.1 and 2 went to Sirali is also admitted by them in
their petition. Complainant further stated that on the assurance
of her father, petitioner No.1 and 2 took her back to Bhopal,
where she was again subjected to harassment and ultimately
was compelled to leave her matrimonial house and take shelter
with her parents. The provision contained in Section 498-A of
I.P.C. includes both mental and physical well being of the wife.
Even though there is no allegations of physical cruelty at Sirali
after the wife left the matrimonial home, however looking to the
fact that the complainant got married on 18.01.2020 and was
compelled to leave the matrimonial house on 12.10.2020, i.e.,
within a short period of 9 months, the suffering and
emotional/mental agony consequent to ill-treatment meted out
to her must have continued at her parental house also, which
amount to commission of cruelty within the meaning of Section
498-A of IPC at the parental house.
1
Misc. Criminal Case No.31135 of 2021 decided on 16-02-2022
20
10. The question as to "whether a woman forced to leave
her matrimonial home on account of acts and conducts that
constitute cruelty can initiate and access the legal process
within the jurisdiction of the Courts where she is forced to take
shelter with the parents or other family members", has been
dealt with in a reference by a Larger Bench of Supreme Court in
the case of Rupali Devi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
others 2019 (5) SCC 384, wherein the Supreme Court has
answered the questions thus :-
10. The question that has posed for an answer has nothing
to do with the provisions of Section 178 (b) or (c). What has
to be really determined is whether the exception carved out
by Section 179 would have any application to confer
jurisdiction in the courts situated in the local area where the
parental house of the wife is located.
11. To answer the above question, one will have to look into
the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Criminal Law
[2nd Amendment Act, 1983(Act 46 of 1983)] by which
inserted in the Indian Penal Code. The section itself may be
noticed in the first instance:
"498A.Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband
or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, "cruelty"
means :
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand."
12. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was introduced
by the Criminal Law (second amendment) Act, 1983. In
addition to the aforesaid amendment in the Indian Penal
21
Code, the provisions of Sections 174 and 176 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to inquiries by police in
case of death by suicides and inquiries by magistrates into
cause of such deaths were also amended. Section 198A was
also inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard
to prosecution of offences under Section 498A. Further by
an amendment in the first schedule to the Cr.PC the offence
under Section 498A was made cognizable and non-bailable.
Of considerable significance is the introduction of Section
113A in the Indian Evidence Act by the Criminal Law
(second amendment) Act, 1983 providing for presumption
as to abetment of suicide by a married woman to be drawn
if such suicide had been committed within a period of seven
years from the date of marriage of the married woman and
she had been subjected to cruelty. Section 113A is in the
following term:
"113-A. Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a
married woman.- When the question is whether the
commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by
her husband or any relative of her husband and it is
shown that she had committed suicide within a period of
seven years from the date of her marriage and that her
husband or such relative of her husband had subjected
her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to
all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide
had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of
her husband.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "cruelty"
shall have the same meaning as in section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
13. The object behind the aforesaid amendment,
undoubtedly, was to combat the increasing cases of cruelty
by the husband and the relatives of the husband on the wife
which leads to commission of suicides or grave injury to the
wife besides seeking to deal with harassment of the wife so
as to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property, etc. The above stated
object of the amendment cannot be overlooked while
answering the question arising in the present case. The 8
judicial endeavour must, therefore, always be to make the
provision of the laws introduced and inserted by the
Criminal Laws (second amendment) Act, 1983 more
efficacious and effective in view of the clear purpose behind
the introduction of the provisions in question, as already
noticed.
22
14. "Cruelty" which is the crux of the offence under Section
498A IPC is defined in Black's Law Dictionary to mean "The
intentional and malicious infliction of mental or physical
suffering on a living creature, esp. a human; abusive
treatment; outrage (Abuse, inhuman treatment, indignity)".
Cruelty can be both physical or mental cruelty. The impact
on the mental health of the wife by overt acts on the part of
the husband or his relatives; the mental stress and trauma
of being driven away from the matrimonial home and her
helplessness to go back to the same home for fear of being
ill-treated are aspects that cannot be ignored while
understanding the meaning of the expression "cruelty"
appearing in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The
emotional distress or psychological effect on the wife, if not
the physical injury, is bound to continue to traumatize the
wife even after she leaves the matrimonial home and takes
shelter at the parental home. Even if the acts of physical
cruelty committed in the matrimonial house may have
ceased and such acts do not occur at the parental home,
there can be no doubt that the mental trauma and the
psychological distress cause by the acts of the husband
including verbal exchanges, if any, that had compelled the
wife to leave the matrimonial home and take shelter with
her parents would continue to persist at the parental home.
Mental cruelty borne out of physical cruelty or abusive and
humiliating verbal exchanges would continue in the parental
home even though there may not be any overt act of
physical cruelty at such place.
15. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
as the object behind its enactment would indicate, is to
provide a civil remedy to victims of domestic violence as
against the remedy in criminal law which is what is provided
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The definition
of the Domestic Violence in the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 contemplates harm or injuries
that endanger the health, safety, life, limb or well being,
whether mental or physical, as well as emotional abuse. The
said definition would certainly, for reasons stated above,
have a close connection with Explanation A & B to Section
498A, Indian Penal Code which defines cruelty. The
provisions contained in Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, undoubtedly, encompasses both mental as well as the
physical well-being of the wife. Even the silence of the wife
may have an underlying element of an emotional distress
and mental agony. Her sufferings at the parental home
though may be directly attributable to commission of acts of
23
cruelty by the husband at the matrimonial home would,
undoubtedly, be the consequences of the acts committed at
the matrimonial home. Such consequences, by itself, would
amount to distinct offences committed at the parental home
where she has taken shelter. The adverse effects on the
mental health in the parental home though on account of
the acts committed in the matrimonial home would, in our
considered view, amount to commission of cruelty within
the meaning of Section 498A at the parental home. The
consequences of the cruelty committed at the matrimonial
home results in repeated offences being committed at the
parental home. This is the kind of offences contemplated
under Section 179 Cr.P.C which would squarely be
applicable to the present case as an answer to the question
raised.
16. We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where
the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the
matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed
by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the
factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a
complaint alleging commission of offences under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code.
In view of the aforestated facts and circumstances and the law
laid down, no ground for interference is made out.
Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs."
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismisses the challenge by all
the members of the family and the husband contending that the
husband having another affair would not amount to cruelty on the
part of the parents. A little earlier to the judgment rendered by the
Madhya Pradesh High Court, the High Court of Madras in the case of
NAKKEERAN v. STATE2, has held as follows:
2
Criminal R.C.No.333 of 2014 decided on 07-12-2021
24
".... .... ....
15.Be that as it may, PW-1, categorically stated that the
petitioner/husband was having extramarital relationship with
one Datchayani, who was also prosecuted as accused/A6 for the
offence under Section 494 of IPC., but, however, the Trial Court
acquitted the said Datchayani as well as the petitioner for the
offence of Section 494 of IPC. In this regard, the evidence
cannot be looked into in piecemeal. This Court has to read the
evidence of PW.1, PW.7 & PW.8 as a whole and a proper reading
would convey the essence that cruelty, predominantly mental
cruelty, was unleashed on PW.1, on account of the extramarital
affairs developed by the petitioner herein. To this, the learned
counsel would rely on paragraph No.15 of the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.V.Prakash Babu case mentioned
supra. Which is extracted hereunder:
"15.The concept of mental cruelty depends upon the
milieu and the strata from which the persons come from
and definitely has an individualistic perception regard being
had to one's endurance and sensitivity. It is difficult to
generalise but certainly, it can be appreciated in a set of
established facts. Extra marital relationship, per se, or as
such would not come within the ambit of Section 498(A) of
IPC. It would constitute a criminal offence. There is no
denial of the fact that the cruelty need not be physical but a
mental torture or abnormal behaviour that amounts to
cruelty or harassment in a given case. It will depend upon
the facts of the said case. To explicate, solely because the
husband is involved in an extra-marital relationship and
there is some suspicion in the mind of wife, that cannot be
regarded as mental cruelty which would attract mental
cruelty for satisfying the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC."
But the perusal of the above dictum would itself make it
clear that the Court has to take into consideration the said
abnormal behaviour with the facts and circumstances of the
case and it has to be decided whether the conduct amounted to
cruelty. Therefore, looking at the evidence of PW.1, PW.7 &
PW.8, which is on record, it is clear that there was extramarital
relationship. It has caused such an effect on the mental health
of PW.1, which resulted in serious domestic discord and her
leaving the matrimonial home. As a matter of fact, as per the
25
evidence on record, PW.1 went out of the matrimonial home on
16.11.2005.
16.During the course of the hearing of the learned
Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the first
respondent, also produced the Birth certificate, evidencing the
birth of a child for the petitioner/accused and the said A6/
Datchayani, which was born on 17.09.2006 itself. Therefore, the
Court cannot close its eyes to the hard evidence and the facts of
this case. It is pertinent to point out even the Appellate Court
has taken an exception to the prosecution in non-filing of Cross
Appeal as against the acquittal of A2 to A6, in this case.
17.Considering all the factors cumulatively, I hold that
the action of the petitioner/accused in having extramarital
relationship, which has further caused grave mental trauma and
affected the mental health of PW.1, leading to serious
circumstances, in conjunction with the act of PW.1 being forced
to leave the matrimonial home, would amount to cruelty to her
within Section 498(A) of IPC."
I am in respectful agreement with what the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh and the High Court of Madras have held, only insofar as it
concerns the allegations against the husband qua 498A of the IPC,
as the alleged extra-marital affair is by the husband. For the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, the facts in the
case at hand are completely lacking in its ingredients, to permit any
investigation to be continued qua Section 498A of the IPC against
mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law. Therefore, the
crime so registered against mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-
26
in-law for offences punishable under Section 498A inter alia of the
IPC cannot be permitted.
10. There is clear ingredient of demand of dowry by the
mother-in-law and father-in-law. Therefore, the offences under the
Dowry Prohibition Act qua the mother-in-law and father-in-law are
to be sustained and investigation to be permitted. The accused
No.4/sister-in-law is without any rhyme or reason dragged into this
web of crime. Therefore, the entire crime so registered against the
accused No.4 is to be obliterated. The view of mine, in this regard,
is in tune with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR3 wherein it is held as
follows:
"Issue involved
10. 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 appellant in-laws are in
the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore
liable to be quashed?
3
(2022)6 SCC 599 or (2022 SCC Online SC 162)
27
11. Before we delve into greater detail on the
nature and content of allegations made, it becomes
pertinent to mention that incorporation of Section 498-
AIPC 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 Section 498-AIPC as instruments to settle
personal scores against the husband and his relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh
Sharma v. State of U.P. [Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.,
(2018) 10 SCC 472: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 301] , has observed :
(SCC pp. 478-79, para 14)
"14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute
with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands
of 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 Act 46 of 1983. The expression
"cruelty" in Section 498-A 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.
[Explanation to Section 498-A.] It is a matter of serious
concern that large number of cases continue to be filed
under Section 498-A alleging harassment of married
women. We have 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
visualised. 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."
13. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this Court
in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [Arnesh Kumar v. State of
28
Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 449] , it was
also observed : (SCC p. 276, para 4)
"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 quite a number
of cases, bedridden grandfathers and grandmothers of
the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are
arrested."
14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of
Jharkhand [Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC
667 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 473] , it has also been observed :
(SCC pp. 676-77, paras 32-36)
"32. It is a matter of common experience that
most of these complaints under Section 498-AIPC 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 is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have
enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure
that the social fibre 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 fibre, peace and tranquillity
29
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 visualised 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 complaint are required to be scrutinised
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 an
amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering
is extremely long and painful."
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of U.P. [Geeta
Mehrotra v. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741: (2013) 1 SCC
(Civ) 212 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 120] it was observed : (SCC p.
749, para 21)
"21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note
of an apt observation of this Court recorded in G.V.
Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad [G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad, (2000) 3
SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] wherein also in a
30
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 : (SCC p. 698, para 12)
'12. ... There has been an outburst of matrimonial
dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony,
the 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 commission of
heinous crimes in which 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 other reasons which
need not be mentioned here for not encouraging
matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over
their defaults and terminate their 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."
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K.
Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 : (2019)
1 SCC (Cri) 605] , it was also observed that : (SCC p. 454,
para 6)
"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."
17. The abovementioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this Court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of Section 498-AIPC
and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of
31
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.
18. Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of
the contents of the FIR dated 1-4-2019, 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.
19. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of
harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous
FIR Respondent 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 learned 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 1-4-2019, is distinct and independent,
32
and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated
11-12-2017.
20. 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 appellant in-laws would simply result in an abuse of
the process of law.
21. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant
circumstances and in the absence of any specific role
attributed to the appellant-accused, 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)
In the light of the preceding analysis qua the facts and the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR
v. STATE OF BIHAR, the necessary order would be as follows:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition No.8837 of 2023 is allowed in part.
The crime in Crime No.188 of 2023 against all the petitioners stands quashed qua offences punishable 33 under Sections 498A, 506 and 34 of the IPC. However, the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 are sustained only as against the mother-in-law and the father-in-law/ accused Nos.2 and 3.
(ii) The entire crime so registered against accused No.4/sister-in-law qua all the offences stands quashed.
(iii) Criminal Petition No.9903 of 2023 filed by accused No.1 in Crime No.188 of 2023 stands dismissed.
(iv) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the investigation/proceedings pending against them before the concerned fora.
Consequently, pending applications, if any, stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ