Karnataka High Court
Safeer Ahmed vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 August, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8971 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SAFEER AHMED
S/O MOHAMMED GOUSA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NO. 275, 3RD CROSS
KHALAQ NAGAR
S.KARIYAPPA ROAD
KANAKAPURA
RAMANAGARA - 562 117.
2. RATHAMATH B.,
W/O SAFEER AHMED
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NO. 275, 3RD CROSS
KHALAQ NAGAR
S KARIYAPPA ROAD
KANAKAPURA
Digitally signed by RAMANAGARA - 562 117.
PADMAVATHI B K
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. RIZWANA KOWSAR M.S.,
KARNATAKA
W/O ASIF A.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 92,
KEREBEEDI KURUPETE
KANAKAPURA
RAMANAGARA - 562 117.
4. ASIF A.,
S/O ABDUL JABBAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
-2-
CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021
RESIDING AT NO.92
KEREBEEDI KURUPETE
KANAKAPURA
RAMANAGARA - 562 117.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DINESHKUMAR RAO K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KANAKAPURA PS - 562 117.
(REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGLAURU - 560 001.
2. SAMEER ANJUM
W/O. IRSHAD AHMED M.S.,
MUBARAK MASEEDI ROAD
TIGALARAPALYA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 058
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHANKAR H.S., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHAIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., KANAKAPURA
IN C.C.NO.404/2020 (FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 489A, 504, 506
R/W 149 OF IPC ALONG WITH SECTION 3 AND 4 OF MUSLIM
WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON MARRIAGE) ACT, 2019).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.404/2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 489A, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.
2. Heard Sri.Dinesh Kumar Rao.K., learned counsel for petitioners, Sri.Shankar.H.S., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.Shaikh Saoud, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Before embarking upon the consideration of the case on its merits, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant and the wife of one Irshad Ahmed.M.S, accused No.1 who is not before the Court.
The 1st petitioner-accused No.2 is the father-in-law, 2nd petitioner-accused No.3 is the mother-in-law, 3rd petitioner -
accused No.4 is the sister-in-law and 4th petitioner - accused No.5 is the brother-in-law of the complainant. Accused No.1 -4- CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021 and the complainant get married on 9.1.2005 and after marriage, it transpires that the complainant and accused No.1 were living in Dubai throughout and later come down to India in the year 2018. After the complainant coming down to India registers a complaint against the petitioners and accused No.1 alleging the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet dropping the offence under Section 354 of the IPC while retaining the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, r/w 149 of the IPC and sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. It is the laying of the charge sheet that drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend with vehemence that there are no allegations against the petitioners, they are hauled into these proceedings without any rhyme or reason only to wreck vengeance against the petitioners for the acts of husband-accused No.1. He would submit that accused Nos.4 and 5/petitioner Nos.3 and 4 did not reside with the couple and are residents of Bangalore.
-5- CRL.P No. 8971 of 20215. Learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that there are prima facie allegations found against the petitioners, particularly, against the father-in-law and mother-in-law and would submit that it is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean.
6. Learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent has been absent throughout. This Court on 30.06.2022 had passed the following order:
ORDER This Court by an order dated 24.06.2022 had observed as follows:
"Finally, three days time is granted to the learned counsel for respondent No.2 to verify the objections, failing which, statement of objections would not be taken on record.
List this matter on 30.06.2022.
Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing."
Even today, the objection so raised by the office with regard to non-filing of an affidavit is not complied with.
Therefore, objections would not be taken on record.
Interim order, granted earlier, is extended till the next date of hearing.
List this matter on 18.07.2022."
-6- CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021Again on 28.7.2022 noticing the absence of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent had passed the following order:
"This Court on 30.06.2022, had passed the following order:
"This Court by an order dated 24.06.2022 had observed as follows:
"Finally, three days time is granted to the learned counsel for respondent No.2 to verify the objections, failing which, statement of objections would not be taken on record.
List this matter on 30.06.2022.
Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of hearing."
Even today, the objection so raised by the office with regard to non-filing of an affidavit is not complied with.
Therefore, objections would not be taken on record.
Interim order, granted earlier, is extended till the next date of hearing.
List this matter on 18.07.2022."
Again on 18.07.2022, the case was adjourned to 20.07.2022 and on 20.07.2022, it is adjourned to today.
Even today, there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2.
As a last chance, list the matter on 03.08.2021.
In the event, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would not appear, the matter would be taken up and disposed in his absence.
Interim order, granted earlier, is extended till the next date of hearing."
-7- CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021Even today, both in the forenoon and in the afternoon there is no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.
8. The afore-quoted relationship between the parties are not in dispute. The complainant and accused No.1 being residents of United Arab Emirates is also not in dispute. After coming back to India in the year 2018 the complaint is generated is also not in dispute. Since the entire issue now springs from the complaint it is germane to notice the complaint and it reads as follows:
"£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹gÀĪÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÀ½UÉ MlÄÖ 4 d£À ªÀÄPÀ̼ÄÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃAiÀĪÀ¼ÀÄ, 2£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAV £ÀÆgÀÄ ¥sÁwªÀiÁ, 3£ÉÃAiÀĪÀgÄÀ vÀªÄÀ ä »zÁAiÀÄvï ¥ÁµÀ 4 £ÉêÀgÀÄ ¸ÁzÀvï ¥ÁµÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ DVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀªÄÀ ä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀéAvÀ HgÀÄ PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÄgÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀªÄÀ ä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä FUÉÎ 4 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ wUÀ¼ÀgÀ¥Á¼ÀåzÀ°è ªÁ¸À«gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:09.01.2005 gÀAzÀÄ PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÄÀ gÀzÀ ªÁ¹ ¸À¦üÃgï CºÀªÀÄzï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ EµÀðzï CºÀªÄÀ zï JªÀiï.J¸ï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀªÄÀ UÉ 3 ªÀµÀðzÀ gÀĪÉÄøÀ EµÁðzï JA§ ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄUÀÄ EgÀÄvÉÛ. £À£ßÀ UÀAqÀ ¸Á¥ÀÖªÉÃgï EAf¤AiÀÄgï DVzÀÄÝ, zÀĨÉÊ £À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £À£ÄÀ £À£ßÀ UÀAqÀ zÀĨÉÊ£À°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁÝUÀ, ZÉ£ÁßV ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÉݪÅÀ . EwÛZÉUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà ºÀÄqÀÄVAiÉÆA¢UÉ CPÀæªÄÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ºÉÆA¢, £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ, ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÁzÀ -8- CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021 £ÀAvÀgÀ FUÉÎ 2 wAUÀ¼À°è £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÆà mÉæöʤAUï EzÉ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀÄ E°è M§âgÉ EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉý, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°ègÀĪÀ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV EgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÄÀ . CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀÄ ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸ÀPÉÌ FUÉÎ 2 wAUÀ½¤AzÀ §AzÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÉݪÅÀ . CA¢¤AzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ MAzÀÄ ¥sÆ É Ã£ï PÀÆqÁ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄzÀå ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ E®è¢zÀÝjAzÀ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:07.04.2018 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CvÉÛ gÀºÀªÀÄvï © gÀªÀgÄÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä vÁ¬Ä ¸ÉÊzÁ ºÀ¹Ã£Á ¨Á£ÀÄ gÀªÀjUÉ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀiÁr CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉUÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £ÁªÀÅ F ¢£À ¢£ÁAPÀ:08.04.2018 gÀAzÀÄ PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÄÀ gÀzÀ°ègÄÀ ªÀ £ÀªÄÀ ä CvÉÛ ªÀiÁªÀ gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ, £À£ßÀ ªÀÄUÀÄ, £À£ßÀ vÀAzÉ, vÁ¬Ä vÀªÀÄä J®ègÆ À CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 12.00 UÀAmÉ ºÉÆwÛUÉ ºÉÆÃzɪÅÀ . CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß UÀAqÀ EµÀðzï CºÀªÀÄzï JªÀiï.J¸ï, EªÀgÀ vÁ¬Ä gÀºÀªÀÄvï ©, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À vÀAV jeÁé£À P˸Àgï JA.J¸ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EªÀgÀ UÀAqÀ D¹Ã¥sï gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ vÀ¯ÁSï, vÀ¯ÁSï, vÀ¯ÁSï JAzÀÄ ºÉý, £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà d«ÄãÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ PÉÆArzÉݪÅÀ . ¤ÃªÀÅ K£ÀÆ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ ªÀÄrPÉƽî JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr, £À£ßÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß PÉÆÃlð £À°è ºÉÃUÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ UÉÆvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÄÀ , £À£ßÀ CvÉÛ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆÃlð £À°è ºÉÃUÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀÅzÀÄ UÉÆvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ£ÄÀ , £À£Àß CvÉÛ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É E®è¸À®èzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ ªÀÄÄAZÉ UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁVzÀݪÀ¼ÄÀ JAzÀÄ »ÃAiÀiÁ½¹, J®ègÀÆ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÉÆÃV JAzÀÄ, PÉlÖ ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ aPÀÌ ªÀAiÀĹì£À°èzÁÝUÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁªÀ ¸À¦üÃgï CºÀªÀÄzï gÀªÀgÄÀ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ±ÁjÃjPÀ zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÀÆ ºÉýgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. F «ZÁgÀªÁV ¸À¦üÃgï CºÀªÀÄzï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ£À£ÄÀ ß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÁzÀgÀÆ ºÉý ©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ, £À£ßÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ZÀ¥àÀr PÀ°è¤AzÀ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä §AzÀÄ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛ£É. £À£Àß UÀAqÀ EµÀðzï CºÀªÀÄzï JªÀiï.J¸ï EªÀgÄÀ eÉqï3349174 £ÀA§j£À ¥Á¸ï¥ÉÆmïð ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ, ºÉÆgÀ zÉñÀPÌÉ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄw߸ÀÄwÛgÄÀ vÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤Ãr vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, ªÀiÁªÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CvÉÛ gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå PÀæªÄÀ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjzÉ."
The complaint narrates several omnibus statements against all the accused particularly petitioners 1 and 2, father-
in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. The allegation against the father-in-law was the one which became punishable under Section 354 of the IPC, as prior to marriage it transpires -9- CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021 that the father-in-law has indulged in such acts which would become such offence. The police, after investigation, dropped the charge against the father-in-law and what remains is Section 498A, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act 2019. The summary of the charge sheet so filed by the police reads as follows:
"ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÄÀ gÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀzÀÄÝ, PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÄgÀ mË£ï SÁ®Pï £ÀUÀgÀ 03£Éà ©¢AiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ DgÉÆæ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ M¼À¨Ás UÀzÀ°è F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ CAPÀt 12gÀ°è PÀAqÀ DgÉÆæ ¸ÀASÉå 01 jAzÀ 05 gÀªÀgÄÀ UÀ¼ÄÀ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀjUÉ F »A¢¤AzÀ®Æ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤Ãr CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:07/04/2018gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 12.00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæ-01 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÁUÀ J-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤£Àß eÉÆvÉ ¨Á¼À®Ä EµÀÖ«®è JAzÀÄ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ EZÉÑUÉ «gÀÄzÀݪÁV ¸ÁQë- 2, ¸ÁQë-3 ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÄÀ vÀ¯ÁSï vÀ¯ÁSï vÀ¯ÁSï JAzÀÄ PÀÆV «ªÁ»vÀ ªÀÄĹèA ªÀÄ»¼ÉAiÀÄ ºÀQÌ£À gÀPÀëuÉAiÀÄ G®èAWÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É ºÁUÀÆ J-02 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-03 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄzÀĪÉUÉ ªÀÄÄAZÉAiÉÄà ¤Ã£ÀÄ UÀ©üðtÂAiÀiÁV¢AiÀÄAvÉ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¸ÉÆ¸É ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁr¢Ýë ªÀÄ£É ©lÄÖ vÉÆ®UÉ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸ÉAiÀiÁUÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉý J-04 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-05 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQëÃ-01 jAzÀ ¸ÁQë-03 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£É ©lÄÖ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃV ¸Á¬Äj ªÀÄvÉÛ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀgÉ PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁr ©¸ÁPÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zsÈÀ qÀ¥n À ÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
A perusal at the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet would clearly indicate the offences on the husband that too which have occurred while the couple were
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021staying at Dubai and few offences that had occurred on 8.4.2018. The allegations against the other accused, petitioners herein, are all omnibus, pointing at no overt act that is committed by the petitioners upon the complainant.
Statements that are recorded also indicate those very offences that are alleged in the complaint, in elaboration to what is stated. Therefore, necessary ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC are not made either in the complaint or in the summary of the charge sheet against the petitioners herein who are father-
in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant nor the offence under Sections 504 or 506 of the IPC.
9. Finding no allegations against them that would meet the ingredients of the offences so alleged, if the proceedings are permitted to continue, the same would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS1, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
12022 SCC OnLine 162
- 11 -CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021
"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 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
- 12 -CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021
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."
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.
- 13 -CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021
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 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
- 14 -CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021
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 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
- 15 -CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021
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.
19. 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
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021terminating 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.
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any
- 17 -
CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021specific 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) The Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment has considered the entire spectrum of law laid down right from the case of GEETA MEHROTRA delineating the principles of the complainant drawing the other members of the family into the web of criminal proceedings without there being any specific allegation against them. Making omnibus statements of commission of overt acts would not suffice for a complaint or a charge to be maintained against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
10. In the light of the afore-quoted facts and the judgment of the Apex Court (supra), permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioners would become
- 18 -
CRL.P No. 8971 of 2021an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.404/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 489A, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 stands quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of considering the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court shall not be influenced or bound by the observations made in the course of the order in any proceedings against other accused.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKP