TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI v. (BY SRI P.G.NAIK AND SMT. G.B. NAIK, ADVOCATES)

(BY SRI PATIL M. H., ADVOCATE) AND:

1. ANJALI MAHESHWAR JAWALE, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE.

2. ARANNYA MAHESHWAR JAWALE, AGE: 05 YEARS, OCC: EDUCATION.

3. AYYANSH MAHESHWAR JAWALE, AGE: 04 YEARS, OCC: EDUCATION, ALL ARE R/O. TPC NO.1916/3/2, SUBRAO NAGAR, WARD NO.9, STITUATED AT CHINCHOLI, TAL: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. … PETITIONERS (RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3 MINOR REP/BY HIS GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 MOTHER.) (BY SRI P.G.NAIK AND SMT. G.B. NAIK, ADVOCATES) … RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER CRL.MISC NO. 547/2022 PENDING ON THEF ILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC RAIBHAG FOR THE OFFENCES U/SEC. 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 OF PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.547 of 2022 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag registered for offences punishable under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel Shri M.H. Patil, appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel Smt. P.G. Naik & Smt. G.B. Naik appearing for the respondents.

3. The first respondent before the concerned Court is the husband who is not before the Court. It transpires that on 06.06.2005, the husband and the respondent complainant get married. The relationship between the two appears to have floundered and on floundering of such relationship, several proceedings are instituted by the wife against her husband, one such proceeding that is impugned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023 in the subject petition invoking Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Initiation of proceedings is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, the petitioners who are the in-laws of the first respondent and other members of the family of the husband are without any rhyme or reason drawn into these proceedings while all the allegations and the claims are made against the husband.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would however submit that other petitioner Nos.3 to 7 are distant relatives and have nothing to do but respondent Nos.1 and 2 – mother-in-law and father-in-law though they stayed separate, have instigated the husband to commit acts which have become the ingredients of domestic violence. She would seek dismissal of the petition at least insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue is whether the proceedings against these petitioners should be permitted to be continued. The relationship of these petitioners with the first respondent is that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are mother-in-law and father-in-law, other respondents are distant relatives they are without rhyme or reason dragged into these proceedings just because the wife has some grievance against them.

8. Insofar as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, a perusal at the complaint so registered by the wife before the concerned Court, has clearly averred that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 i.e., mother-in-law and father-in-law reside separately and they are not with the couple or do not have anything to do with a squabble with the couple. Therefore on that score permitting further preceding qua petitioner Nos.1 and 2 i.e., mother-in-law and father-in-law also - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023 would become an abuse of the process of the law and run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR ALIAS SONAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS1 wherein it is held as under: “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? pertinent to mention

11. Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes 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 personal scores against the husband and his relatives. 1 (2022) 6 SCC 599 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023

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 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.” trivial

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 matrimonial disputes recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-AIPC was introduced with increase - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023 the menace of to combat avowed object 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 quite a number grandmothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.” grandfathers bedridden cases,

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 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023 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.

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 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 into consideration while pragmatic 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. realities reveals trials long and 36. Experience rancour, protracted criminal acrimony and bitterness 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 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023 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. 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 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023 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 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 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 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023 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.

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. the assurances, all accused However, despite 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 respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023 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.

22. In view of the above facts and discussions, the impugned order dated 13-11-2019 [Mohd. Ikram v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 1985] passed by the High Court of Patna is set aside. The impugned FIR No. 248 of 2019 against the appellants under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498-A read with Section 34IPC stands quashed.”

9. In that light, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings against these petitioners.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.547 of 2022 pending on the file of the Addl. Civil - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1091 CRL.P No. 102558 of 2023 Judge and JMFC, Raibag registered for offences punishable under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57