MRS. MUMTAJ ARIFF v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O MR. M.B.MOHAMMED YOUSUF, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 R/AT NEAR WATER TANK, VASAVI HOSTEL ROAD, RAVINDRA NAGAR, HASSAN – 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.THEJESH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.P.B.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED

13.09.2021 IN C.C.NO.3711/2021 PENDING CONSIDERATION ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 4TH ACJ AND JMFC COURT, HASSAN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioners, who are the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.3711/2021 registered before IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan.

2. Heard Sri Satyanarayana Chalke S., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri P. Thejesh, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. P.B. Umesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022

3. The facts in brief, germane are as follows: Before noticing the facts, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties to the lis. Petitioner No.1 is accused No.2, mother-in-law of respondent No.2 – the complainant, wife of one Sri. Mohammed Yousuf, accused No.1 is not before the Court. Petitioner No.2 is accused No.3, brother of the husband of the complainant, which would be the brother-in-law of respondent No.2 - the complainant. The complainant and Sri. Mohammed Yousuf get married on

18.11.2017 and at the time of marriage, the husband was employed in Cambridge United Kingdom and the complainant, after marriage joins him and were residing at the United Kingdom. It transpires that the relationship between the husband and the complainant flounders and on such floundering of the relationship, the impugned complaint comes to be registered by the wife on 08.12.2020 before the jurisdictional police at Hassan for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 114, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and filed their final report i.e., charge sheet arraigning three members of the family as accused for the aforesaid offences. Accused No.1 is the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 husband, accused No.2 is the mother-in-law and accused No.3 is the brother-in-law of the complainant. The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, taking this Court through the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet, would contend that there are no allegations against the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law, petitioners, who had no connection or nexus. What has happened between the husband and wife, all that they have done is visiting the husband and the wife when they were staying in United Kingdom, and what is narrated in the complaint is what has happened during the brief stay of the petitioners in the United Kingdom. He would submit that permitting further proceedings would undoubtedly be an abuse of the process of the law and therefore, seeks quashment of these proceedings against these petitioners.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the complainant would refute the submissions and seek to defend the action of registering the crime, as according to him when - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 the mother-in-law visited the United Kingdom had verbally tortured the wife alleging that she was not a fit wife to the husband, after that the story stops. He would however contend that since the charge sheet is filed by the police, the matter should not be interdicted and the petitioners are permitted to undergo the trial.

6. Learned HCGP would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant to contend that the charge sheet is filed by the police after investigation and the offences are found against the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law as well. Therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition.

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. The relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant are that of the husband and wife, which is a matter of record. The relationship appears to have floundered when the couple - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 were residing in the United Kingdom, all that the mother-in-law has done in the case at hand is, visited the couple in Cambridge United Kingdom on 11.06.2018. What has happened in brief stay becomes the fulcrum of the complaint against the mother-in-law. Since the entire issue is now triggered by the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint, which reads as follows: "UÉ, DgÀPÀëPÀ ¤jÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄ»¼Á ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ, ºÁ¸À£À. EAzÀ, ²æêÀÄw ¤zÁ WÀfèÃ, PÉÆA. ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï D²Pï Dj¥sï, 28 ªÀµÀð ªÁlgï mÁåAPï ¸À«ÄÃ¥À, ªÁ¸À« ºÁ¸ÉÖÃ/ï gÀ¸ÉÛ, gÀ«ÃAzÀæ £ÀUÀgÀ, ºÁ¸À£À. 9900521189. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï D²Pï Dj¥sï, £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄĪÀiÁæeï Dj¥sï, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CtÚ ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï eÁ¥sÀgï J/ÁègÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ ¨É¤ßUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉÆ/É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è FUÀ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¢£ÁAR:18-11-2017 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆAiÀĪÀÄvÀÆÛj£À ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï Dj¥sï ªÀÄUÀ ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï D²Pï Dj¥sï£ÉÆA¢UÉ 5 ®PÀë ºÀt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 500 UÁæA a£ÀßzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀgÁzÀ C§ÄÝ/ï ªÁfzï ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄgÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀgÁzÀ CªÀiÁ£ï SÁ£ïgÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 25 ®PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß RZÀÄð ªÀiÁr ºÁ¸À£ï C±ÉÆÃPï ºÉÆÃmÉ/ï£À°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, 06 wAUÀ¼À PÁ® £À£ÀߣÀÄß J/ÁègÀÄ ZÉ£ÁßV £ÉÆÃrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DzÀ 30 ¢£ÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï D²Pï Dj¥sï £ÉÆA¢UÉ AiÀÄÄPÉ PÉÃA©æqÀÓöß ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ C°è qÁmÁ ¸ÉÊAn¸ïÖ DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1 1/2 ªÀµÀð C/Éèà ªÁ¸À«zÉÝ, £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄĪÀiÁæeï Dj¥sï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À CtÚ ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï eÁ¥sÀgï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÀÄß PÉýPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¥Àæw ¢£À £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ CªÁZÀåªÁV"- Statusless girl, Lowgrade person, Thirdclass*" E¤ßvÀgÉ PÉlÖ ¥ÀzÀUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ PÉʬÄAzÀ ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ ¨É¤ßUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ C£ÉÊwPÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ ºÉüÀzÉ J®èªÀ£ÀÄß fêÀ£ÀUÉÆøÀÌgÀ ¸À»¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÉ. CvÉÛ ªÀÄĪÀiÁÛeï Dj¥sï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¨ÁªÀ ªÀĺÀªÀÄäzï eÁ¥sÀgï gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ/É E®è¸À®èzÀ ZÁr ºÉý ºÉaÑ£À £À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß Mr¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÀĪÀÄäPÀÄÌ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. CªÀgÀ ªÀiÁvÀÄ PÀnÖPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ zÉÊ»PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ. F «ZÁgÀzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ §Ä¢ÝªÁzÀ ºÉý §A¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr £À£ÀߣÀÄß ¢.11/06/2018 gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ºÁ¸À£ÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÁUÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ KPÁKQ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, 5 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ ¨Á JAzÀÄ PÉʬÄAzÀ ªÉÄÊ PÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÀgÀzÉà EzÀÝgÉ PÉÆ/É ªÀiÁqÀzÉà ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ PÉÆ/É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ªÀÄvÉÛ £À£ÀߣÀÄß £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄ£É PÉÆAiÀĪÀÄvÀÆÛjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À vÁ¬Ä AiÀÄÄPÉ PÉÃA©æqïeïUÉ §AzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀUÉ C¢üãï dÄ£ÉÃgÀ JA§ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÀÄnÖzÀ ªÉÄÃ/É £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß CtÚ AiÀÄÄPÉ PÉÃA©æqïeïUÉ §AzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £À£ÀUÉ DUÀÄwÛzÀÝ »A¸É §UÉÎ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ §UÉÎ J®èªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉýzÁUÀ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉ - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 vÁ¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CtÚ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ vÁ¬ÄUÉ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ, £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄä vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA§A¢üPÀjUÉ w½¹¢ÝÃAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ £Á£ÀÄ E°è K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÆ AiÀiÁgÀÄ PÉüÀĪÀªÀj®è, PÉÆ/É ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁqÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉý »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¤Ã£ÀÄ E°è EgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¨ÉÃqÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÁ¬ÄAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£Ár£À PÉÆAiÀĪÀÄvÀÆÛj£À £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ JAzÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ, D ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄĪÀiÁæeï Dj¥sï ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÁªÀ ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï eÁ¥sÀgï ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï D²Pï Dj¥sï UÉ ¸Àj ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À E®è, ¤£ÀUÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁrzɪÀÅ JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ºÁUÀÆ AiÀÄÄPÉ PÉÃA©æqïÓ £À°èzÀÝ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ¤UÉ E®è¸À®èzÀ ZÁr ªÀiÁvÀÄ ºÉý CªÀjAzÀ ¨ÉʬĹ J/ÁègÀÄ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. F «ZÁgÀ w½zÀ ªÉÄÃ/É £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ºÁ¸À£ÀPÉÌ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ §A¢zÀÄÝ, DUÀ®Æ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, £À£Àß CvÉÛ £À£Àß ¨ÁªÀ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï £Àß° ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. »A¸É ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAR:26-5-2019 gÀAzÀÄ AiÀÄÄPÉ PÉÃA©æqïeï¤AzÀ EArAiÀiÁUÉ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Kgï¥ÉÆÃmïðUÉ §AzÀÄ C°èUÉ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgɹPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ Kgï¥ÉÆÃmïð¤AzÀ £ÉÃgÀªÁV vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£Ár£À PÉÆAiÀĪÀÄvÀÆÛj£À £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. C°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, £À£Àß CvÉÛ, £À£Àß ¨ÁªÀ J/ÁègÀÆ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB »A¸É ¤ÃqÀvÁÛ CªÁZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄUÉ w½¹zÀÝjAzÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 14-6-2019 gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆAiÀĪÀÄvÀÆÛjUÉ §AzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, £À£Àß CvÉÛ, £À£Àß ¨ÁªÀ CªÀjUÉ C£ÉÆãÀåªÁV ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀAvÉ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ KPÁJQ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï D²Pï Dj¥sï £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ ¨É¤ßUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ PÉʬÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ, PÉÆ®Äè¥ÀnÖ »rzÀÄ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄzÉå gÁwæ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 12-30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ºÉÆgÀPÉÌ vÀ½î £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ, §AzÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ PÉÆ/É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ £À£ÀUÉ, £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄjUÉ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀÄÝ, FªÀgÉUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ, £À£Àß CvÉÛ, £À£Àß ¨ÁªÀ DUÀ°Ã AiÀiÁgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ¥sÉÆÃ£ï £À°è ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸ÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ°Ã, ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ°Ã ªÀiÁqÀzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ¸ÀjºÉÆÃUÀ§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ E°èªÀgÉUÀÆ PÁzÀÄ, E°èªÀgÉUÀÆ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ, £À£ÀߣÀÄß gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ, ºÁUÀÆ - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 £À£Àß UÀAqÀ £À£ÀUÉ 3 vÀ/Á¨ï (wæªÀ½) £ÉÆÃn¸ï ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB £À£Àß vÀAzÉ vÁ¬Ä PÉÆAiÀĪÀÄvÀÆÛjUÉ ºÉÆÃUÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¤zÁ ¥sÀfà eÉÆvÉ E£ÀÆß 5 ®PÀë ºÉaÑ£À ºÀt ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ ºÀt ¤Ãr £À£Àß eÉÆvÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆr, E®èªÁzÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¤ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ/Éèà ElÄÖPÉƽî JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÝjAzÀ, ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DzÀ ªÉÄð¤AzÀ®Æ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ, PÉʬÄAzÀ ªÀÄÄRPÉÌ ¨É¤ßUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀQëuÉ vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃrzÀÝjAzÀ, £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À fêÀPÉÌ EªÀjAzÀ C¥ÁAiÀÄ«gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï D²Pï Dj¥sï, £À£Àß CvÉÛ ªÀÄÄvÀÄÛeï Dj¥sï, £À£Àß ¨ÁªÀ ªÉƺÀªÀÄäzï eÁ¥sÀgï gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ gÀPÀëuÉ ¤Ãr, ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ¥Á¸ïWÉÆÃmïð ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß vÀAzÉvÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ J/Áè a£ÀßzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ §mÉÖ, £À£Àß zÁR/ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆr¹PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁV PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ¥Àw ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀĪÀgÀ «¼Á¸À –FLYME TRAVEL SOLUTIONS, 7 MARDU NAGAR, OPP. TO St THOMAS SCHOOL, KK PUDUR, COIMBATORE - 641038 gÀ°è ªÁ¸À«gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

9. The entire narration in the complaint is glorifying the allegations against the husband and a sprinkling few against the mother-in-law. The sprinkling few would not mean the ingredients of Sections 498A of the IPC. Insofar as the brother-in-law is concerned, there is not even such sprinkling allegations, they are absolutely vague. Based upon this complaint, a crime in Crime No.131/2020 comes to be registered. The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows: - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022

17.PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À 498(J), 323, 504, 506 114 gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ eÉÆvÉUÉ 3 & 4 r.¦.DPÀÖ ¢£ÁAPÀ:18-11-2017 gÀAzÀÄ ºÁ¸À£À C±ÉÆÃPÀ ºÉÆmÉÃ/ï £À°è ¸ÁQë- 1 ¤zÁ WÀeÉèà J-1 ªÉƺÀªÀÄzï D²Pï DjÃ¥sï gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄ »jAiÀÄgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄRzÀ°è ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è J-1 gÀªÀjUÉ 5 ®PÀë £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt 500 UÁæA a£ÀßzÀ D¨sÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀgÀzÀPÀëuÉAiÀiÁV PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ zÉÆõÀgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀvÀæ PÁ®A 12 gÀ°è PÀAqÀ J-1 ªÉƺÀªÀÄzï D²Pï DjÃ¥ï J-1ªÉƺÀªÀÄzï eÁ¥sÀgï J-3 ªÉƪÀÄvÁeï DjÃ¥sï EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ J-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 ¤zÁ WÀeÉèà gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀĪÉAiÀiÁV vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£ÁqÀÄ gÁdå PÉÆAiÀĪÀÄÄvÀÆÛjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÁ® EzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÉÄÃjPÁzÀ AiÀÄÄ.PÉ UÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV MAzÀÄ wAUÀ¼À PÁ® EzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÉÄÃjPÁzÀ AiÀÄÄ.PÉUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV C°è dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ DªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr AiÀÄÄ.PÉ ¬ÄAzÀ PÉÆAiÀĪÀÄÄvÀÆÛjUÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ J-1 jAzÀ J-3 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ºÀwÛgÀ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄÄAqÉ ºÀ®Ì ªÀÄÄAqÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÁ¸À£ÀPÉÌ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÁUÀ J-1 jAzÀ J-3 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄÄAqÉ ºÀ®Ì ªÀÄÄAqÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ vÀAzÉ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ ºÉaÑ£À ªÀgÀzÀPÀëuÉAiÀiÁV 5 ®PÀë vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV »A¸É QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤Ãr J-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉʬÄAzÀ ªÉÄÊPÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ £ÉƪÀÅAlÄ ªÀiÁr J-2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J-3 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ J-1 gÀªÀjUÉ EªÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀgÀzÀPÀëuÉ ºÀt vÀAzÉ ªÀģɬÄAzÀ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¨Á JAzÀgÉ E/Éè EzÁÝ¼É ºÉÆr EªÀ½UÉ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀæZÉÆÃzsÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀıÀ:¥ÉæÃgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß GAlĪÀiÁr ¢£ÁAPÀ 05-12-2020 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11-00 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è gÀ«ÃAzÀæ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ J-1 jAzÀ J-3 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ºÀwÛgÀ dUÀ¼À vÉUÉzÀÄ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀÝAvÉ DªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ºÉaÑUÉ 5 ®PÀë ªÀgÀzÀPÀëuÉ ºÀt vÀgÀĪÀAvÉ ªÀgÀzÀPÀëuÉ ºÀt vÀgÀzÉ EzÀÝgÉ ªÀÄ£É ¸ÉÃj¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ PÉÆ/É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÉÛ.

10. A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would also - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 indicate that against the mother-in-law and the brother-in-law, there are only sprinkling vague allegations, which would undoubtedly not mean the ingredients of Section 498A or 504 or 506 of the IPC as could be. Permitting further proceedings against the petitioners would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM AND OTHERS V. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS1, wherein it has held 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, 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 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 162 - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 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 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.” - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022

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, decades are arrested.” living abroad their sisters

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. - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022

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. properly

34. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. visualized

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 - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 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. - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 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 encouraging mentioned 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:- relatives the distant “6. The Courts should be careful in proceeding against 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.” - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022

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 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 - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution. Furthermore, regarding similar allegations

20. 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 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. in-laws of 22. Therefore, upon consideration of 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 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 - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC:17861 CRL.P No. 74 of 2022 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)

11. In the light of the unequivocal facts narrated hereinabove and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court afore-quoted, permitting further trial against these petitioners would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.3711/2021 before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Hassan, stands quashed qua the petitioners. Sd/- JUDGE SJK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9