Karnataka High Court
Aravind Katti And Ors vs State And Anr on 27 January, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:565
CRL.P No. 200614 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200614 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. ARAVIND KATTI S/O SIDDANNA KATTI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR,
R/O. CIB COLONY BEHIND CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURAGI.
2. MALLAMMA W/O SIDDANNA KATTI,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O. CIB COLONY BEHIND CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURAGI.
3. SIDDANNA S/O HULEAPPA KATTI,
Digitally signed AGE: 87 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
by SHILPA R R/O. CIB COLONY BEHIND CENTRAL BUS STAND,
TENIHALLI KALABURAGI.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. MAHADEVI W/O CHIDANAND,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED TEACHER,
R/O. SHIVSHAKTI NAGAR,
KALABURAGI.
5. CHIDANAND S/O GUTAPPA KADGANCHI,
AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEE,
R/O. SHIVSHAKTI NAGAR,
KALABURAGI.
6. SHARANAMMA W/O MAREAPPA,
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:565
CRL.P No. 200614 of 2023
R/O. CIB COLONY BEHIND CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURAGI.
7. MAREAPPA S/O HULEAPPA KATTI,
AGE: 89 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O. CIB COLONY BEHIND CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BASAVALING NASI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE THROUGH
KALABURAGI CITY WOMAN PS,
REPRESENTED BY HCGP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT KALABURAGI BENCH-585102
2. ROOPA W/O DR ARVIND KATTI,
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O. CIB COLONY BEHIND CENTRAL BUS STAND,
KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1
SRI SHARAVANKUMAR MATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
CRIME NO.18/2023 OF WOMEN PS, KALABURAGI FOR THE
OFFENCE U/SEC. 498A, 323, 504, 506, 109, 34 OF IPC AND
SEC. 3 AND 4 OF DP ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.
C.J. (J.D) AND JMFC AT GULBARGA.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:565
CRL.P No. 200614 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Accused Nos.1 to 7 are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.18/2023, registered by Kalaburagi City Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 106 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is pending consideration before the Court of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kalaburagi.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. FIR in Crime No.18/2023 was registered by Kalaburagi City Women Police Station, Kalaburagi for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein on the basis of the first information dated 20.02.2023, received from respondent No.2 herein, who is the wife petitioner No.1/accused No.1. Being aggrieved by the impugned -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:565 CRL.P No. 200614 of 2023 criminal proceedings, the petitioners are before this Court to quash the same.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that respondent No.2 has made false and baseless allegations against her husband and his relatives only with an intention to coerce and harass them. Respondent No.2 has left the company of her husband and has taken shelter in her parents' house. He submits that only general and omnibus allegations are found as against petitioner Nos.2 to 7/accused Nos.2 to 7 in the first information, who are close relatives of petitioner No.1/accused No.1. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 have opposed the petition. They submit that respondent No.2 has allegations in the first information against all the accused persons and therefore, investigation in the impugned -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:565 CRL.P No. 200614 of 2023 criminal proceedings cannot be scuttled. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.
6. Perusal of the first information would go to show that marriage of accused No.1/petitioner No.1 with respondent No.2 was solemnized by the family members of both the parties on 27.04.2016. Petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and respondent No.2 both are qualified doctors. It is alleged in the first information that at the time of marriage, accused persons had received dowry from the family members of respondent No.2. In spite of the same, respondent No.2 was allegedly being ill-treated in her matrimonial house in furtherance of demand for additional dowry. In the first information, she has stated that in the month of January, 2021, she had gone to Bengaluru for further studies and thereafter, it appears she was not residing in her matrimonial house at Kalaburagi. On 26.01.2023, she allegedly came from Bengaluru to Kalaburagi and on 19.02.2023, she along with her family members had gone to her matrimonial -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:565 CRL.P No. 200614 of 2023 house and on the said date, the accused persons allegedly abused and assaulted her and her family members. In the first information, there are no descriptions about any specific incident that had allegedly taken place in the matrimonial house of respondent No.2 in which accused persons had ill-treated her. Only general and omnibus allegations are made and the said allegations as against accused Nos.2 to 7 relates to the period prior to 2021. Undisputedly, from the month of January, 2021 onwards till the month of January, 2023, respondent No.2 was staying at Bengaluru and she was not staying in her matrimonial house. Petitioner Nos.2 to 7 are all aged persons and they have been arrayed as accused in the present case by making omnibus allegations only for the reason that they are close relatives of petitioner No.1/accused No.1, who is the husband of respondent No.2 herein.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:565 CRL.P No. 200614 of 2023
7. 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 1 (2010) 7 SCC 667 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:565 CRL.P No. 200614 of 2023 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 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 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:565 CRL.P No. 200614 of 2023 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.
8. 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 specific allegations, which would attract the offences, an attempt to implicate the near relatives of the husband cannot be permitted.
9. This Court in the case of ASMA KHANUM @ NOOR ASMA & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & 2 (2019)4 SCC 615 3 (2019)8 SCC 642
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:565 CRL.P No. 200614 of 2023 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.
10. In the case on hand, general and omnibus allegations are found as against petitioner Nos.2 to 7/accused Nos.2 to 7 and based on such allegations, if the impugned criminal proceedings is allowed to be continued as against them, it would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, following order is passed:
ORDER The criminal petition is partly allowed. The Criminal petition is dismissed against petitioner No.1 and allowed as against petitioner Nos.2 to 7.4
2020(6) KAR.L.J.90
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:565 CRL.P No. 200614 of 2023 The entire proceedings in Crime No.18/2023, registered by Kalaburagi City Women Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 106 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is pending consideration before the Court of I Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kalaburagi, as against petitioner Nos.2 to 7/accused Nos.2 to 7 stands quashed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT:PK