Karnataka High Court
Sri. Jude Arokiaraj L vs State Of Karnataka on 26 June, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23617
CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1953 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI JUDE AROKIARAJ L.,
S/O LATE LEWIS I.,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.293, 10 CROSS,
SRIRAMAPURA, 2ND STAGE,
JT EXTENSION,
MYSURU - 570 023.
2. SMT. BELLA RAJ
W/O JUDE AROKIARAJ L.,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 293, 10 CROSS,
SRIRAMAPURA, 2ND STAGE,
Digitally signed JT EXTENSION, MYSURU - 570 023.
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 3. SRI MARIO CHRISTOPHER PREM J.,
KARNATAKA S/O JUDE AROKIARAJ L.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT: NO. 293/B, 10 CROSS,
SRIRAMAPURA, 2ND STAGE,
JT EXTENSION,
MYSURU - 570 023.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.SHRIDEVI BHOSALE, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23617
CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
EAST ZONE WOMEN POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 051.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR/HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. SHINY ALEX
W/O MARIO GERARD PRADEEP
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.46, 2ND CROSS ROAD,
DUO ENCLAVE LAYOUT, BTM 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISH GANAPATHI, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI VARUN J.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
16.02.2023 IN C.C.NO.4897/2023 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME
NO.205/2022 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE), PASSED BY THE
VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU, THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE, FOR THE
OFFENCES U/S 498A, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 4 OF
THE DOWRY PROHIBITION ACT, 1961, AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS WHO ARE ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4, VIDE ANNEXURE
A AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:23617
CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023
ORDER
Petitioners/Father-in-law, Mother-in-law and Brother-in-
law of the 2nd respondent/complainant, are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.4897 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Heard Smt Shridevi Bhosale, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri Harish Ganapathi, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents No.1 and Sri Varun J Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:-
The 2nd respondent/complainant gets married to accused No.1 on 02-05-2016 and then began to reside at Doha, Qatar, for the reason that accused No.1 was in employment at Doha.
The relationship between the husband and wife turns sore in Doha. Later on, on coming back to India registers the complaint -4- NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 on 02-12-2022 for the afore-quoted offences. The complaint then becomes a crime in Crime No.205 of 2022. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against these petitioners. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel Smt Shridevi Bhosale would submit that either the complaint or the findings in the charge sheet or even the statements rendered at the time of investigation nowhere points at any overt act performed by the petitioners.
The couple after the marriage flew to Qatar and were residing there. It appears the relationship turned sore at Doha.
Therefore, on the ground that there is no allegation that would touch upon the ingredients of the offences, learned counsel seeks quashment of the proceedings qua petitioners.
5. Learned counsel Sri Varun J Patil, appearing for the 2nd respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the police have filed a charge sheet and the petitioners will have to come out clean in a full blown trial, as -5- NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 the allegation is found against them both in the complaint and in the charge sheet.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would toe the liens of the learned counsel for the complainant and seeks dismissal of the petition on the score that the charge sheet is filed.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that the complainant and accused No.1 after marriage were residing at Qatar. All the events/skirmishes between the husband and the wife appears to have happened at Doha. After coming back to India, it transpires that the complainant registers the subject complaint against all the family members including the husband who is arrayed as accused No.1, who is not before the Court. Since the issue -6- NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint and it reads as follows:
"December 02, 2022 To, The Inspector of Police Shivajinagar Women's Police Station Bangalore, Karnataka.
From, Shiny Alex 46, 2nd Cross Road, Duo Enclave Layout BTM 3rd Stage, Bangalore-560 076 Respected Sir/Madam, [Sub: Complaint against Mario Girard Pradeep (husband), Gude Arakiya Raj (father in-law), Mario Christopher Prem (brother-in-law) and Bella raj (Mother in law) for harassing me and my family for dowry] Me and Pradeep got married in Chennai at Jeevan Jothi Mahal on May 02, 2016. Before marriage his parents demanded dowry of 100 sovereign of gold. After our wedding we moved to Qatar. In Qatar he harassed me to bring the gold his parents demanded before wedding who did not bring it he forced me and tortured to get a job in Qatar. Since I refused to work in Qatar, he verbally abused me calling me unproductive.
In 2020 January we moved to Bangalore, India. From 2020 to 2021 we stayed in Narayanapura. In 2019 he and his parents called my father to Mysore and asked for dowry. My father refused to give stating that "Shiny is my only daughter and I will give her the gold when she asks for it."
After moving to Bangalore he again started to harass me for gold and asked me to get a job during -7- NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 lockdown. In 2021 I got the job Bangalore. After getting a job me and Pradeep moved to HSR Layout in May 2021. In HSR Layout my husband again harassed me for dowry and asked me to give him my whole salary.
I refused to give him my salary and gold. In 2022 Pradeep got a job in Ireland. While his visa was being processed he told if I do not give my salary and gold (Dowry) to construct a house in Mysore he will not process my family Visa for Ireland.
After this there were 3 family meetings. The 1st meeting happened in Chennai. 2nd and 3rd meeting happened in Bangalore.
September 10, 2022 - 1st meeting.
Me, Pradeep and my parents had a conversation and I asked for my basic rights that the gold will be with my parents and I will use it when I want. After moving to Ireland I want to use my salary for emergency, flight tickets when my parents get sick or if I want to attend any family functions and also not to force me to go to Church. Pradeep got aggravated, and shouted at me and my parents and told he will speak only after his parents come on September 11, 2022 me and Pradeep left to Bangalore from Chennai. After coming to Bangalore he gave me silent treatment and did not speak with me. I pleaded him to speak with me, but he refused and threatened me that he will continue the same since I nailed out my rights. Since I could not bear the stress, I informed him and left to Chennai stayed there for couple of days and came back to Chennai. He also left to Mysore on September 14, 2022 and never came back.
2nd family meeting - September 24, 2022 Pradeep and his parents came to Bangalore on September 24 and met me and parents in HSR Layout. During this meeting, Pradeep and his parents told they will not accept my right and gave me 15 minutes to decide on my future and give them a reply. I refused to do so and asked for another family meeting where his relatives and my relatives should come and I can ask for justice.
-8-NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 3rd family meeting- October 24, 2022 After the 2nd family meeting Pradeep took his belongings and took the bike keys which I was using for commute (He was going to Bahrain but still he took it) and later he cut the internet connection by doing so he was harassing me and I was in stress and pressure.
In the 3rd family meeting, Pradeep and his parents demanded dowry and money and stated that since Pradeep was taking care of me for providing food and shelter, I should give him gold and my whole salary. During the meeting Pradeep and his parents harassed me and my family and his brother took video of me without my permission. My father-in-law read a list in which they clearly mentioned they want my gold and salary. After the meeting he agreed to live with me in HSR Layout, and left to Mysore.
November 03, 2022 On November 03, 2022 he came to Bangalore and told me the he will not live with me anymore and asked to accept it and separate mutually since I could not convince him, I agreed. After this he called me to his lawyer on November 03, 2022 Me. Ajaykumar who tried to convince and manipulate me to agree for mutual consent and told me not to ask for compensation as it would extend the process and give more stress and trauma to me. I did not agree with them and left. Since Pradeep did not come from Mysore in mid November I moved to BTM Layout after informing him.
On November 20, 2022 I gave a petition in Bharathinagar ACP Office. WE have a meeting with ACP on November 26, 2022. On November 29, 2022 he gave a fake complaint in HSR Layout Police Station in retaliation to my petition, harassed my sister and grandmother on November 30 to get the items when I was not at home and on December 1, 2022 he and his brother along with police collected the items.
Right from the beginning he threatened me to divorce me when I do not listen to him or do the thing he wanted, I request your good Officer to take action on Pradeep, his brother and his family (father and mother)."
-9-NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 The narration in the complaint is the amalgam of what has happened in various places, Qatar, Chennai or Bengaluru, as the case would be, nowhere it points at the harassment meted or torture meted out by these petitioners. The allegations are omnibus and vague in the complaint. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet, as obtaining in column No.17, reads as follows:
"17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ DªÀgÀt 04 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ UÀAqÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁªÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, J3 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ CvÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, J4 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄåzÀÄ£À£ÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÁ®A £ÀA-06gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀAzÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë-5 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÁ¬ÄAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë- 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-7 ¸ÉßûvÀgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄÄ J1 DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:02/05/2016 gÀAzÀÄ fêÀ£ï eÉÆåÃw ªÀĺÀ¯ï ZÀ£ÉßöÊ E¯Éè JgÀqÀÆ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ M¦àUÉ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ Qæ²ÑAiÀÄ£ï ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ UÀÄgÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ¯Éè £ÉgÀªÉÃjgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
F ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzsÀªÀÅ ZÀZïð ªÀiÁånæªÉƤ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁVzÀÄÝ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁr PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýzÀÝgÀÄ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ¯Éè ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀÄ GqÀÄUÉÆgÉAiÀiÁV ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ 100 ¸ÀªÀgÀ£ï a£ÀߪÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
D a£ÀßzÀ MqÀªÉUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ J1 jAzÀ J4 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÁUÉÎ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ºÁUÀÆ J1 DgÉÆæ PÀvÁUÉð ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, J1 DgÉÆæ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ¤Ãr®èªÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ E¯Éè AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ eÁ¨ï ºÀÄqÀÄQPÉÆ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë- 1 gÀªÀjUÉ »A¸É ¤Ãr, ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ¨ÉÊ¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É.
2019gÀ°è J2 jAzÀ J4 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄʸÀÆjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ MvÁ۬ĹzÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªÀgÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ ¤gÁPÀj¹, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÁV
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀ a£ÀßzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÉÄà ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ DPÉAiÀÄ a£Àß PÉüÀÄvÁÛ¼ÉÆà CªÀvÀÄÛ £Á£ÀÄ DPÉUÉ ¤ÃqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ J2 jAzÀ J4 DgÉÆæUÀ½UÉ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
2020gÀ°è ¸ÁQë-1 ºÁUÀÆ J1 DgÉÆæ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ ªÁ¥Á¸À §AzÀÄ 2020 jAzÀ 2021 gÀ ªÀgÉUÉ £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¥ÀÄgÀ, ªÀiÁgÀvÀºÀ½î, E°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÝgÀÄ, £ÀAvÀgÀ J1 jAzÀ J4 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ a£ÀߪÀ£ÀÄß vÀgÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÁWÀÆ eÁ¨ï ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¯ÁPÀqË£ï ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è MvÁÛAiÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ 2021gÀ°è ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°èAiÉÄà eÁ¨ÉÎ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ºÁUÀÆ J1 DgÉÆæ ªÁ¸À £ÀA-1932/ºÀZï, 21£Éà J ªÉÄãï gÉÆÃqï, 1£Éà ºÀAvÀ, ºÉZï.J¸ï.Dgï ¯ÉÃOmï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560087, E°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÁzÀÝgÀÄ, J1 DgÉÆæ ªÀÄvÀÛ vÀ£Àß ºÀ¼É ZÁ½AiÀÄ£Éß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ J¯Áè ¸Áå®j vÀ£ÀUÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É. EzÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ M¥ÀàzÉ EzÀÄÝ, ¸Àé®à ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ J1 DgÉÆæUÉ L®gï¯ÁåAqÀß°è PÉ®¸À ¹QÌzÀÄÝ MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ J1 DgÉÆæUÉ vÀ£Àß ¸Áå®j ºÁUÀÆ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ (a£Àß)AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À°è£À ªÀÄ£É PÀlÖ®Ä PÉÆqÀzÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ DPÉAiÀÄ «Ã¸Á ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
¸ÁQë-1 ºÁUÀÆ J1 DgÉÆæ £ÀqÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ªÀÄ£À¸ÁÛ¥À ºÁUÀÆ dUÀ¼À §gÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ »jAiÀÄgÀÄ 3 ¨Áj £ÁåAiÀÄ-¥ÀAZÁ¬Äw ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ J1 jAzÀ J4 DgÉÆæUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ ZÁ½AiÀÄ£Éß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹ MAzÀÄ ªÉÃ¼É ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ¸Áå®j ºÁUÀÆ DPÉUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë-4 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹zÀ a£ÀߪÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÉ J1 DgÉÆæ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ rªÉÇøÀgï ¤ÃqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀîzÉ, ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ¸Áå®j ºÁUÀÆ DPÉUÉ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀiÁr¹zÀ a£ÀßzÀ MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ¥ÀzÉà ¥ÀzÉà MvÁÛAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ ¤gÁPÀj¸ÀzÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ rªÉÇøïð ¤ÃqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ²PÁëºÀð C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉ¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
DzÀÝjAzÀ J1 jAzÀ J4 DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À C£ÀéAiÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¥À ºÉÆj¹ zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ ¸À°è¹zÉ."
Perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would also indicate omnibus and vague statement made against these petitioners of demand of dowry and harassment. On the said demand, the allegation is that they have provoked accused No.1 to behave in a manner which has become the ingredient of the offence.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 Therefore, finding no allegation that would touch upon the ingredients against these petitioners, if further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR1 and become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. The Apex Court in the said judgment has 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?
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 1 (2022)6 SCC 599
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 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 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
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 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 of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases.
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023
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.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 Prasad, (2000) 3 SCC 693 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 733] 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 : (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
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 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 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.
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023
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, 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)
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 Therefore, owing to the afore-narrated facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR supra, further proceedings permitted would on the face of it become an abuse of the process of the law, resulting in miscarriage of justice. Wherefore, I deem it appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the proceedings against these petitioners.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 16-02-23 and all further proceedings pending in C.C.No.4897 of 2023 pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed qua the petitioners.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made during the course of this order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same would not
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23617 CRL.P No. 1953 of 2023 bind or influence any other proceedings pending against any other accused before any other fora.
Consequently, I.A.No.3 of 2023 stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73