Karnataka High Court
Raghavendra G vs State By Karnataka on 2 March, 2023
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3132 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1 . RAGAVENDRA G.,
S/O GANGADHARA K.M.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 25,
2ND CROSS
NEAR MARUTHI SERVICE STATION
KALLAHALLI
MANDYA - 571 401.
2 . LAKSHMAMMA
W/O GANGADHARA K.M.,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.25,
2ND CROSS
NEAR MARUTHI SERVICE STATION
KALLAHALLI,
MANDYA - 571 401.
3 . GANGADHARA .K.M
S/O LATE MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 25,
2ND CROSS
NEAR MARUTHI SERVICE STATION
KALLAHALLI
MANDYA - 571 401.
4 . KRISHNA
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA
2
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO. 25,
2ND CROSS
NEAR MARUTHI SERVICE STATION
KALLAHALLI
MANDYA - 571 401.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.DEEPASHREE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY KARNATAKA
BY MANDYA WOMENT POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. PRIYA M.U.,
W/O RAGAVENDRA G.,
D/O LATE UMESH M.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/O 2ND CROSS, NEAR MARUTHI SERVICE STATION,
KALLAHALLI, MANDYA - 571 401.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.24/2020
REGISTERED BY THE MANDYA WOMEN POLICE, MANDYA
(RESPONDENT) AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 498A, 323, 504, 506, 114, 34 OF IPC AND SECD.3, 4 OF
D.P ACT (ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MANDYA IN C.C.NO.3259/2021).
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.24 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard Smt.Deepashree, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.K.P.Yashoda, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Akarsh Kumar Gowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts that leads the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 4 in CC No.3259 of 2021. The marriage between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent/complainant takes place on 20-05-2013, at which point in time, the 1st 4 petitioner was working in the Indian Army and served the Army for 17 years. The relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/wife turns sore, upon which, the 1st petitioner institutes a petition seeking for annulment of marriage on 11.06.2020.
4. After registration of the said proceeding before the concerned Family Court, the impugned complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent on 18-09-2020 alleging offences punishable as afore-quoted. The allegations are made against the 1st petitioner/husband, the mother-in-law, father-in- law of the complainant and distant relative of the petitioner and are therefore, arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4.
5. The police, after investigation, filed charge sheet in the matter and the proceedings are now pending in CC No.3259 of 2021. The filing of charge sheet by the 1st respondent - police is what drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
6. Learned counsel Smt.Deepashree, appearing for the petitioners would contend that there is no allegation that would become an ingredient of offence under Section 498A of IPC against the petitioners, as the marriage between the two was 5 solemnized in the year 2013 when the petitioner was in the Indian Army and used to visit the 2nd respondent/wife intermittently once in three months or six months, as the case would be, and no complaint whatsoever was registered prior to the petitioner instituting a proceeding for annulment of marriage.
7. Learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent would refute the submissions to contend that there has been constant harassment by the 1st petitioner whenever he comes to meet the wife and would submit that when the wife was staying at Delhi, there has been severe harassment by the petitioners upon the 2nd respondent.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and therefore, do not require reiteration. The 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent/complainant get married on 20-05-2013, at which point in time the 1st petitioner was serving in the Armed Forces. By the time the petitioner returned on his retirement 6 from the Armed Forces, the relationship between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent had turned sour. In that light, 1st petitioner files a petition in M.C.No.61 of 2020 seeking annulment of marriage. The moment the said proceeding is instituted by the 1st petitioner, a complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent/wife on 18-09-2020. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.24 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint is not restricted to the 1st petitioner, but to the parents and relative of the 1st petitioner as well. The police, after investigation, have filed a charge sheet in the matter. The summary of the charge sheet reads as follows:
"17.PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À PÀ®A 498(J)-323-504-114-PÀÆqÀ 34 L¦¹ 3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 r¦ DPïÖ.
ªÀÄAqÀå ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À PÀ®èºÀ½î «« £ÀUÀgÀ 2£Éà AiÀÄ PÁæ¸ï £À°è ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁ¸À«zÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÁ®A £ÀA.12gÀ°è PÀAqÀ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjgÀªÀjUÉ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄÄ 2013 d£ÀªÀj PÉÆ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÁgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÆÝj£À°è ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁQë-2 jAzÀ ¸ÁQë-8 gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ £ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀ PÀqɬÄAzÀ DgÉÆæ-1 ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 gÀªÀgÀÄ EzÀÄÝ, DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀjUÉ 02 ®PÀë ºÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 150 UÁæA a£ÀߪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV PÉÆlÄÖ bÀvÀæzÀ°è CzÀÆÝjAiÀiÁV ¤²ÑvÁxÀð ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆr JAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉýzÀÄÝ, CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ 2 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀªÀÄä PÉʯÁzÀµÀÄÖ PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý CzÀgÀAvÉ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀjUÉ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ, PÉÊUÉ 15UÁæA£À MAzÀÄ ¨Áæ¸Éèmï, 15UÁæA£À PÀwÛUÉ ZÉÊ£ÀÄ, 5 UÁæA£À MAzÀÄ GAUÀÄgÀ, ºÀÄqÀÄVUÉ 55UÁæA£À 2 J¼É ZÉÊ£ÀÄ, 10UÁæA£À Q«UÉ 2 eÉÆvÉ N¯É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ªÀqÀªÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÉÃj MlÄÖ 150UÁæA a£Àß 7 ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:07-02-2013gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-3 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è CzÀÆÝjAiÀiÁV ¤²ÑvÁxÀð ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ zÀE£ÁAPÀ:20-05-2013 gÀAzÀÄ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè MqÀªÉ ºÁUÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉAiÀiÁV DgÉÆæ-2 gÀªÀgÀ ºÀ¸ÀÛ ªÀÄAqÀåzÀ gÉÊvÀ ¸À¨Ás AUÀtzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÝ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀgÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ¤Ãr ±Á¸ÉÆÛçÃPÀÛªÁV ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸Àé®à ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® C£ÉÆåãÀåªÁVzÀÄÝ DgÉÆæ-1 jAzÀ 4 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤Ãr ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀjUÉ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀjgÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉÃUÉÆà C£ÀĸÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀAvÉ §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉýzÀÄÝ, ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ GªÉÄñï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀmÁÖUÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÁAiÀÄðPÉÌ §AzÀÄ PÁAiÀÄð ªÀÄÄV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß zɺÀ°UÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ C°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀîzÉà ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß vÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÁ¥À¸ï §A¢zÀÄÝ F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀjUÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÁQë-2, 3 gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÉÃUÉÆà ¸Àé®à ¢£ÀUÀ¼À PÁ® C£ÀĸÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ ¤£Àß UÀAqÀ §AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §Ä¢Ý ºÉüÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ CgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ d£ÀªÀj-2020gÀ°è ¸ÉãɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈvÀÛgÁV ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ²Ã®ªÀ£ÀÄß ±ÀAQ¹ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À¢AzÀ ªÀwð¸ÀÄvÁÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ¤Ãr zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ «Ä°ljAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸ÀzÀ°èzÉÝ, £À£ÀUÉ FUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ M¼Éî GzÉÆåÃUÀ ¹UÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ¤ÃqÀ°®è. ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¸Á¬Ä¹ E£ÉÆßAzÀÄ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÊvÀÄA¨Á ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ »A¸É ¤Ãr PÉʬÄAzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, DUÀ C¯Éèà EzÀÝ DgÉÆæ-2 jAzÀ 4 gÀªÀgÀÄ EªÀ¼ÀzÀÄ eÁ¹ÛAiÀiÁVzÉ. EªÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¨ÉÃqÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä EªÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÊvÉƼÉzÀÄPÉÆà JAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ºÉý PÀĪÀÄäPÀÄÌ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ ªÀiÁw¤AzÀ DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß GzÉÝò¹ £Á¬Ä ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ¯ÉÆÃ¥Àgï ªÀÄÄAqÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£É ©lÄÖ vÉÆ®UÀÄ JAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ §AiÀÄÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ «Ä°ljAiÀÄ°è EzÀÄÝ §AzÀªÀ£ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ K£À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÁzÀå«®è. ¤Ã£ÀÄ AiÀiÁjUÉ ºÉüÀÄwÛAiÉÆà ºÉÆÃV ºÉüÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊ¢zÀÄÝ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ vÀ¤SÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁPÁëzÁs gÀUÀ½AzÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀÅ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ .
DzÀÝjAzÀ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À jÃvÁå DgÉÆæ-1 jAzÀ 4 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ ±ÀÈvÀ.".
The summary of the charge sheet is that the 1st petitioner while the complainant was staying in Delhi has meted out harassment upon her. Even in January 2020 after he retired from the Armed Forces he has been doubting the fidelity of his wife and has meted out certain harassment. Therefore, the allegations are 8 primarily of the year 2013 and the complaint comes to be registered in the year 2020 i.e., on 18-09-2020 that too immediately after the husband registers proceedings seeking annulment of marriage. Therefore, it is a clear case where the wife institutes proceedings of events that have happened 7 years ago as a counter blast to what the 1st petitioner registered seeking annulment of marriage, on this ground as well, the proceedings against the husband would require obliteration. This is insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned.
10. Insofar as petitioners 2 to 4, who are the mother-in- law, father-in-law and a distant relative of the 1st petitioner are concerned, except omni bus statement made about the harassment meted out to the complainant by these petitioners, there are no specific allegations attributed against them. The complaint or the summary of the charge sheet (supra) would not indicate any offence, much less, the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498A or other offences that are alleged against petitioners 2 to 4. They are without any rhyme or reason dragged into these proceedings. Therefore, finding no substance in the allegations against any of the petitioners as the 2nd respondent/wife has registered the complaint as a 9 counterblast for the incidents that have happened long long ago, permitting further proceedings against the petitioners would become abuse of the process of law and would degenerate into harassment against the petitioners.
11. The view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by 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 holds as follows:
"Issue Involved
11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?
12. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 10 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 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 11 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.
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 12 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 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 13 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 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 14 complainant alleged that 'all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy'. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.
20. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.
21. Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in- laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.
22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the 15 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 undisputed facts as narrated hereinabove and the law laid down by the Apex Court, if further proceedings are permitted to continue against the petitioners, it would undoubtedly result in miscarriage of justice.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned proceedings pending in C.C.No.3259 of 2021 before the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya (arising out of Crime No.24 of 2020) stands quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that the aforesaid finding would not be applicable to any other proceedings pending between the parties before any judicial fora.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ