Karnataka High Court
Mumtaj Begum vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 25 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308
CRL.P No. 200666 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200666 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
MUMTAJ BEGUM W/O MAHEBOOB SAB,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/AT. ROUDAL BANDA, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
DIST. RAICHUR-584122.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.C.JAKA, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
Digitally signed KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION,
by SHIVAKUMAR
HIREMATH KLAABURAGI, DIST. KALABURAGI-585102,
Location: HIGH NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
2. SMT. SYEDA AYESHA AMREEN W/O JAHANGIR,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/AT. ROUDAL BANDA, TQ. LINGASUGUR,
NOW R/AT. H.NO.4-601/73G, MB NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585105.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1
SRI SYED MASTAN, ADV. FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308
CRL.P No. 200666 of 2024
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE CASE IN C.C NO.
1732/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. JMFC AT
KALABURAGI, WHICH IS REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF CASE
REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.84/2022 AND AFTER
INVESTIGATION FILED CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 109 R/W 34 OF IPC
AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P ACT, BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
KALABURAGI CITY WOMEN POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER,
TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND TO PREVENT ABUSE
OF PROCESS OF THE COURT AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER
OR ORDERS, WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED
TO PASS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused no.2 in C.C.No.1733/2023 pending before the Court of I Addl. JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.82/2024 registered by Kalaburagi City Women Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 108 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, is before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case as against her.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308 CRL.P No. 200666 of 2024
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is mother of accused no.1 who is the husband of respondent no.2. Accused no.1 and respondent no.2 were staying in Kalaburagi, whereas petitioner is the permanent resident of Raichur. Accused no.1 was the employee of local municipality at Kalaburagi. The entire allegations in the first information is as against accused no.1, and the other accused persons allegedly have only instigated accused no.1 and no other allegations are found against them.
3. Per contra, learned HCGCP who has opposed the prayer made in the petition does not dispute the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
4. Perusal of the material available on record would go to show that the marriage of respondent no.2 herein with accused no.1 was performed on 21.06.2021. In the first information, it is alleged that at the time of marriage as per the demand made, dowry was paid to accused no.1. In the first information itself, it is stated that accused no.1 was working as a Junior Civil Engineer in Kalaburagi Mahanagara Palike and he and his relatives were residing in a rented house at Kalaburagi. In the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308 CRL.P No. 200666 of 2024 first information, it is alleged that on 03.07.2021, accused no.1 came to the house and had abused and assaulted respondent no.2, and thereafter, left the house. It is further stated in the first information that the whereabouts of accused no.1 is not known to respondent no.2 ever since 03.07.2021.
5. The first information in the present case is submitted on 22.08.2022 which is after a period of more than one year from the last date of incident and from the date from which the whereabouts of accused no.1 is not known to respondent no.2. In the first information, the address of the petitioner herein is shown as Raichur, whereas respondent no.2 is residing in Kalaburagi city. Except the bald allegation that accused no.2 along with the other accused had instigated her husband to commit the crime, there is no other specific allegations against the petitioner. Petitioner who is a lady aged about 65 years is facing trial for the alleged offences based on general and omnibus allegations made by respondent no.2 who is her daughter-in-law.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308 CRL.P No. 200666 of 2024
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PREETI GUPTA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER1 has held as follows:
"32. It is matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts of our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.1
(2010) 7 SCC 667 -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308 CRL.P No. 200666 of 2024
34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.
35. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a Herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complainant are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.
7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of TARBEZ KHAN ALIAS GUDDU & OTHERS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER2 and in the case of SEENIVASAN VS THE STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE3, has observed that in the absence of 2 (2019)4 SCC 615 3 (2 019)8 SCC 642 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308 CRL.P No. 200666 of 2024 specific allegations, which would attract the offences, an attempt to implicate the near relatives of the husband cannot be permitted.
8. This Court in the case of ASMA KHANUM @ NOOR ASMA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER4 has held that when the material on record would go to show that the petitioners, who are close relatives of husband, are married and residing separately and when the complaint lacks specific allegations so as to implicate the petitioners for the offences alleged against them, such criminal prosecution shall not be allowed to continue.
9. In the background of the judgments referred to supra, if the impugned criminal proceedings is allowed to continue against the petitioner herein who is arrayed as accused no.2 based on the allegations made, the same would amount to abuse of process of law, and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the following order:
10. Petition is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C.No.1733/2023 pending before the Court of I Addl. JMFC, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.82/2024 registered by 4 2020(6) KAR.L.J.90 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1308 CRL.P No. 200666 of 2024 Kalaburagi City Women Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 108 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, as against the petitioner/accused no.2 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE KK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT:PK