Karnataka High Court
Smt Gurdyal Kaur W/O Santoksingh Digwa vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 18.02.2025 R
Pronounced on : 07.03.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 103784 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GURDYAL KAUR
W/O SANTOKSINGH DIGWA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O DATTA NAGAR NEAR
DATT MANDIR, KOPARGAON
AHMEDNAGAR - 423 601
MAHARASHTRA.
2. SRI SANTOKH SINGH
S/O MAHENDRASINGH DIGWA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
OCC: UNEMPLOYED
R/O DATTAR NAGAR
NEAR DATTA MANDIR
KOPARGAON, AHMEDNAGAR - 423 601
MAHARASHTRA.
3. SRI PARAMJEET SINGH
S/O SANTOKSINGH DIGWA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC: EMPLOYED IN PRIVATE FIRM
R/O DATTA NAGAR, NEAR DATTA MANDIR
2
KOPARGAON, AHMEDNAGAR - 423 601
MAHARASHTRA.
4. SMT. HARMEETKAUR
W/O PARAMJEET SINGH DIGWA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O DATTA NAGAR, NEAR DATTA MANDIR
KOPARGAON, AHMEDNAGAR - 423 601
MAHARASHTRA.
5. SMT. MEENAKSHI KAUR
W/O ARAVINDSINGH LOHIYA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O AURANGABAD
AHMEDNAGAR - 431 001
MAHARASHTRA.
6. SMT. BIMALA @ BIMLO KAUR
W/O NONISINGH POTIAL
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O DATTA NAGAR, NEAR DATTA MANDIR
KOPARGAON, AHMEDNAGAR - 423 601
MAHARASHTRA.
7. SRI JASMINDER SINGH
S/O KATAPALSINGH RATOD
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O NO.33, NETAJI LAYOUT
VADDAR HALLI
BENGALURU - 562 162
BENGALURU CITY.
8. SRI RAVINDRA SING @ RAVI
S/O JASPALSINGH DIWAN
3
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O DATTA NAGAR, NEAR DATTA MANDIR
KOPARGAON, AHMEDNAGAR - 423 601
MAHARASHTRA.
9. SMT. SATNAMKAUR @ NONI KAUR
W/O HARVAMDRASINGH KASHAPORA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O BIJNUOR, TALUK: BIJNOR
UTTAR PRADESH.
10 . SRI INDRAJEETSINGH @ ROCKY SINGH
S/O GURUCHARANSINGH POTIL
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O BIJNUOR, CHANDPUR
TALUK AND DISTRICT: BIJNOR
UTTAR PRADESH.
11 . SRI PARAMJEETSINGH @ PINTO
S/O AMRUTSINGH DIGWA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
R/O DATTA NAGAR, NEAR DATTA MANDIR
GUJARAT - 423 601
AHMEDNAGAR, MAHARASHTRA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI NEELENDRA G.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELAGAVI CITY WOMEN POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
4
DHARWAD - 580 001.
2. SMT. HARPREET KAUR
W/O SANNY SINGH DIGWA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O DATTA NAGAR, NEAR DATTA MANDIR
KOPARGAON, DISTRICT: AHMEDNAGAR
NOW AT
PLOT NO.13, GURUKRUPA
KAPILESHWAR - 590 001
COLONY BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARAD V.MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1;
SRI V.M.SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE AND
SRI M.L.VANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.10.2023
PASSED BY THE JMFC-II COURT, BELAGAVI IN CC NO.2833/2023
IN CRIME NO.46/2023 OF BELAGAVI CITY WOMEN P.S. THEREBY
TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 498A,
109, 120B, 143, 323, 324, 343, 307, 377, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF
IPC AND SECTION 3, 4 AND 6 OF D.P. ACT AND ALLOW THE ABOVE
CRIMINAL PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.02.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
5
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 12 are at the doors of this
Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.2833 of 2023,
pending before the JMFC-II Court, Belagavi, arising out of crime in
Crime No.46 of 2023, registered for offences punishable under
Sections 109, 120B, 143, 307, 323, 324, 343, 377, 498A, 504 and
506 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners, Sri Sharad V.Magadum, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 and
Sri V.M. Sheelvant and Sri M.L.Vanti, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The 2nd respondent is the complainant, wife of one Sunny
Singh Digwa, who is accused No.1 but not before this Court. The
other accused are the mother-in-law, father-in-law, brothers-in-
law, sister-in-law, grandmother and people who have negotiated
6
marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant. Accused
No.1 and the complainant got married on 28-11-2021. Soon after
the marriage, it appears, due to certain sexual and physical torture
by the husband/accused No.1, the relationship between the two
flounders. On floundering of relationship, the wife has instituted
several proceedings one of which is registration of a crime in Crime
No.46 of 2023 for several offences including the offences under
Sections 323 and 498A of the IPC. The police after investigation,
file a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet has driven all these
petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would
vehemently contend that all the allegations are against the
husband/accused No.1. None of the allegations even to their
minute sense are alleged against the petitioners in the case at
hand. The grandmother and people who had negotiated for
marriage are all dragged into the web of crime. He would accept
that the offences against accused No.1 are grave. But, seeks
quashment of proceedings against all other accused/petitioners by
placing reliance upon plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex
7
Court, all of which would bear consideration in the course of the
order qua their relevance.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
complainant would vehemently refute the submissions, contending
that it is not only the husband but few of the petitioners have
indulged in torture. He would accept that grandmother, accused
Nos.7 and accused Nos.11 and 12 have nothing to do with the
crime.
6. The learned Additional Government Advocate would also
toe the lines of the learned counsel representing the complainant
and seeks dismissal of the petition insofar as allegations against
few of the petitioners are concerned.
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 the parties are again as noted hereinabove, is
also not in dispute. The 2nd respondent and accused No.1 got
8
married on 28.11.2021. The relationship between the husband and
the wife went irrevocably sore. The irrevocability was attributed to
the acts of the husband/accused No.1 who is alleged of physical and
sexual torture meted to the wife. On such horrendous acts of the
husband, emerges the complaint of the wife, the complainant/2nd
respondent. Since the entire issue has triggered from the
complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as
follows:
"jUÉ,
ಾನ ೕ ಇನ ೆಕ
ಮ ಾ ೕ ಾ ೆ,
ಾ ಂಪ, ೆಳ ಾ .
ಾ ಾರ ಾದ : #ಾನು %&ೕಮ', ಹರ)&ೕ* ೌರ ಸ-./ಂ0 ಾ1, ವಯಸು :
28 ವಷ . ಉ ೊ ೕಗ : ಮ#ೆ ೆಲಸ, 9ಾ' /:. ;ಾ।। ದತ= ಗು>
ಹ'=ರ, ಾಂ? ನಗರ, ೊಪ@ರ ಾಂವ A ॥ ಅಹಮದ ನಗರ-
ಮCಾDಾಷEರ- 423601, F.ನಂ. 8951253777 ಸಧ
#ಾನು ನನ. ತಂ ೆಯ ಮ#ೆ ಾದ ಓಂ ಾರ /ಂ0 IಾJ ಾ
ಾಸ : ಾKಟ ನಂ. 13, ಕ)Mೇಶ1ರ ಾಲ-, ೆಳ ಾ ಯ K
OಾಸOಾPರುQೆ=ೕ#ೆ.
#ಾಂಕ : 28-11-2021 ರಂದು ನನ.ನು. ಸನುR/ಂಗ ಾ1, ;ಾ।। ದತ=
ಗು> ಹ'=ರ. ಾಂ? ನಗರ, ೊಪ@ರ ಾಂವ A ॥ ಅಹಮದ ನಗರ-ಮCಾDಾಷEರ-
423601, ಇತನ 9ೊQೆ SಾಮಪTರ, A।। ಅಹRದ ನಗರ. (ಉತ=ರ ಪ& ೇಶದ K ನನ.
ಮದುOೆಯನು. ಾ> ೊJ ರುQಾ=Dೆ. ಸದU ನನ. ಮದುOೆಯನು. ನನ. ತಂ ೆಯವರು
9
ಅ'ೕ ಜೃಂಬ ೆYಂದ ರೂ.
ರೂ 1 ೋJ 75 ಲZ ರೂ ಾYಗಳನು. ಖಚು ಾ>
ಮದುOೆ ಾ> ೊJ ರುQಾ=Dೆ.
ೆ Cಾಗೂ ಮದುOೆ ಸಮಯದ K ವರದ]ಣ ಅಂQಾ ನನ ೆ
40 QೊMೆ ಬಂ ಾರದ ಆಭರಣ.
ಆಭರಣ ಒಂದು ವಜ&ದ ;ೆb Cಾಗೂ ಾರು ಮತು= ಒಂದು
ಕಮ/ ಯc ಅಂಗ>ಯನು. ನನ. CೆಸU ೆ ೊJ
ೊJ ರುQಾ=Dೆ.
ೆ
ಮದುOೆdeಂತ ಮುಂfೆ ನನ. ಗಂಡ ೋMಾKಪhರ ಮCಾDಾಷEರದ K ೆಲಸ
ಾಡು'=ದ.i ಮದುOೆ ನಂತರ ಕೂjಾ ಅ Kkೕ ಮುಂದುವDೆಯುವ ಾP ಮತು= ನನಗೂ
ಕೂjಾ ಆಸ@Qೆ&ಯ K ೆಲಸ ಾಡಲು ಅನುಮ'ಸುQೆ=ೕ#ೆಂದು ಅ#ೇಕ ಆlಾ1ಸ#ೆಗಳನು.
ೊJ ರುQಾ=#ೆ.
ೕPರುOಾಗ #ಾನು ಮದುOೆ ಾದ ನಂತರ ನmನ ಗಂಡನ ಮ#ೆ ಾದ
fಾಂದಪhರ (ಉತ=ರ ಪ& ೇಶ) PÉÌ ಕDೆದು ೊಂಡು CೋPರುQಾ=Dೆ ಮದುOೆ ಾದ
ಎರಡ#ೇ ನOೇ ನನ. ಅQೆ= ನನ. ಆ/=ಯ ಎMಾK ಾಖMೆಗಳನು. Qೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಅದರ K
-ನ. ಗಂಡನ Cಾಗೂ ನಮR ಕುಂಟುಂಬದವರದೂi ಾರ ೇ Cೆಸರು ಾಖ ರುವ ಲK
ಅಂQಾ ನನ. oೕMೆ ನನ. ಅQೆ= ಾದ 1) ಗುರದ ಾಳ ೌರ ಾ1, ವಯಸು : 55.
ಾವ#ಾದ 2) ಸಂQೋಕ/ಂ0 ಾ=. ವಯಸು : 59. oೖದುನ#ಾದ 3)
ಪರಮAೕತ/ಂ0 ಾ1 ಇತನ Cೆಂಡ' ಾದ 4) ಹರqತ ೌರ, #ಾದ- ಾದ 5)
qೕ#ಾ] ೌರ Mೋ ಾ Cಾಗೂ ಅQೆ=ಯ ಅವ1 ಾದ 6) rೕಮMಾ ೌರ 7)
ಜಸqಂದ /ಂ0 8) ರ ೕಂದ&/ಂ0 ಮತು= ಅQೆ=ಯ ತಂP ಾದ 9) #ೋ- ಎಲKರೂ
ಕೂ> ೊಂಡು /J ೆದುi ನನ.ನು. ರೂq-ಂದ ಎ ೆದು ತಂದು -ಮR ತಂ ೆ ಎMಾK
ಆ/=ಯನು. -ನ. CೆಸUನ K ಾಖ / ೊJ ಾi#ೆ ನಮR ಕುಟುಂಬದವರ ಾರದೂi
Cೆಸರು ಇರುವ ಲK ಅಂQಾ ಅOಾZÀå ಶಬiUÀ½Aದ gÁAqÀ vÉÃj ªÀiÁPÁ ZÀÆvÀ E£ÀÄß C£ÉÃPÀ
CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ನನ ೆ Cಾಗೂ ನನ. ತಂ ೆ-QಾYಗೂ ಕೂಡ ಅOಾಚ OಾP ೈದು
ನನ ೆ ಜ ಾt> Cೊjೆಬjೆ ಾ>ರುQಾ=Dೆ.
ಇuೇMಾK ನನ ೆ ಾನ/ಕ Cಾಗೂ ೈ ಕ dರುಕುಳ -ೕ>ರುQಾ=Dೆ.
ೆ ನನ ೆ
ನಮR ಮ#ೆಯ K ಹ #ೈದು ಜನ ಸದಸ UರುQಾ=Dೆ ಅವDೆಲKUಗೂ ಅಡು ೆ ಾಡುವದು
ಮತು= ಅವDೆಲKರ ;ೇOೆಯನು. ಾಡಲು ನನ ೆ ಹvwರುQಾ=Dೆ.
ೆ ಮುಂ ೆ Dಾ'& ನನ. ಗಂಡ
ಮ#ೆ ೆ ಬರುವದು ಒಂ ೇ ತಡ ಆತ- ೆ ಎಲKರೂ ಕೂ> ೊಂಡು ನನ. ಬ ೆt ಇಲKದನ
i ು.
ಸುಳxy Cೇz ನನ. ಗಂಡ- ೆ ಬjೆಯಲು dರುಕುಳ -ೕ>ಲು Cೇಳ{'=ದರ
i ು.
ು
10
#ಾನು Dಾ'& ಮಲPದ ನಂತರ ನನ. ಗಂಡನು ನನ ೆ Cೊjೆಯುವದು.
Cೊjೆಯುವದು
ಬjೆಯುವದು ಾಡುವದು ಮತು= ನನ. ಗು ಾ=ಂಗ ೆe ೆರಳx Cಾd ಚುಚುwವದು.
ಚುಚುwವದು ಮುಖ
ಕಚುwವದು.
ಕಚುwವದು d ಯನು. ಜಗುtವದು /ಕe.
/ಕe /ಕe 9ಾ ೆ ೆ Cೊjೆಯುವದು ಚೂಟುವದನು.
ಾಡು'=ದನ
i ು.
ು
#ಾ ೆಳ ಾದDೆ ನನ. ಅQೆ= -ೕನು -ನ. ತವರು ಮ#ೆYಂದ ಆ/=ಯನು. ತರ ೆ
CೊದDೆ -ೕನು ನಮR ಮ#ೆಯ K ನನ. ಮಗ- ೆ Cೆಂಡ' ಾP ಇರಲು
|ೕಗ ½ರುವ ಲK ಅಂQಾ ನನ ೆ ಾನ/ಕ Cಾಗೂ ೈ ಕ ಂ;ೆ -ೕಡುವದು ಮತು=
ನನ. ಮಗ- ೆ ೇDೆ ಹುಡPಯನು. #ೋ> ಮದOೆ ಾಡುQೆ=ೕOೆ ಅಂQಾ -ೕನು ನಮR
ಮ#ೆಯ K ಇರ ೇಡ Dಾಂಡ. v#ಾ ತು~ ಾ ಾd ಚೂತ ಅಂQಾ ಅOಾಚ ಶಬiಗzಂದ
ೈಯುವದು ಮತು= -ೕನು ೇDೆ ಗಂಡ/ನ 9ೊQೆ ಾQಾ>= -ೕನು ನಮR ಮ ೆ ೆ
ಒಪT@ವಂತ Cೆಣು• ಅಲK ಅಂQಾ ನನ ೆ ಮ#ೆಯ K ಒಂದೂ ನದವh #ೆಮR Yಂದ
ಇರುಲು ೊJ ರುವ ಲK. 20 Uಂದ 28 ನ ನನ. ಗಂಡ ಉತ=ರ ಪ& ೇಶದ K ಇದiDೆ ನನ.
9ೊQೆ ಒಂದೂ ವಸ fೆ#ಾ.P ಾತ#ಾ>ರುವ ಲK Cಾಗೂ #ಾಲೂ Dಾ'& -ನ. ತವರು
ಮ#ೆYಂದ ಹಣ ಬಂ ಾರ ತಂ ರುವ ಲK ಅಂQಾ ನನ ೆ Cೊjೆಬjೆ ಾಡುವದು
ಾನ/ಕ Cಾಗೂ ೈ ಕ ಂ;ೆಯನು. -ೕ>ರುQಾ=#ೆ ಮತು= -ನ. ತವರು ಮ#ೆYಂದ
ಹಣ ಬಂ ಾರ ತರ ದiDೆ -ನ. 9ೊQೆ ಾ ೆ1 ಾಡುವ ಲK ಅಂQಾ Cೊjೆ ಬjೆ
ಾ>ರುQಾ=#ೆ. ಒಂದು ನ Dಾ'& ನನ. ಗಂಡ ನನ. 9ೊQೆ Cೊ>ಬ> ಾ> Cೊರಗjೆ
ಮಲPದi ಸಮಯದ K ನನ. ಅQೆ= ಸು ಾರು ೆಳPನ 9ಾOಾದ K 4-00 ಘಂ•ೆಯ
ಸು ಾU ೆ ೈಯ K fಾಕು >ದು ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ನನ ೆ Cೊjೆಯಲು
Cೊ jೆಯಲು ಬಂ ದiಳx
ಅ ಂ
K ದ #ಾನು ತ)@/ ೊಂಡು Cೊರಗjೆ ಓ> ಬಂ ರುQೆ=ೕ#ೆ.
#ೆ.
ಾಚ 2022 ರಂದು ನನ. ತಂ ೆ QಾY ನನ.ನು. ೆಳ ಾ ೆ ಕDೆದು ೊಂಡು
ಬಂದು ತಮR ಹ'=ರ ಇಟು ೊಂಡDೆ. ನನ ೆ #ಾಲೂ oೕ ಂದ oೕMೆ >|ೕ ಾಲ
ಾ> #ಾನು ಮ#ೆYಂದ ಎ ಯ
K ೂ Cೊರಗjೆ CೋಗದಂQೆ ಾc ಾಡು'=ದiರು #ಾನು
ನನ. ತಂ ೆ ಮ#ೆಯ K ಾiಗ ನನ ೆ ೆJ ಾಗಲು ಅಂQಾ ಮೂರು-#ಾಲುe ;ಾDೆ
ೆ ೆಾ ೆ ಬಂ ದiನು. D ಸಮಯದ K ನನ.ನು. ಎ K ಾದರೂ ಸುQಾ=> ಬDೋಣ
ಅಂQಾ ಕDೆದು ೊಂಡು CೋP ಾUನ K ಕೂ>Cಾd -ನ. ತಂ ೆ ಕjೆYಂದ ಆ/=. ºÀt
ಮತು= ಾರನು. ತಂ ರುವ ಲK ಅಂQಾ ಅOಾಚ OಾP ೈದು D ಸಮಯದಲೂK
ಸಮಯದಲೂK ನನ ೆ
11
Cೊjೆ ಬjೆ ಾ>ರುQಾ=#ೆ 9ೋDಾP Cೊjೆಬjೆ ಾ>ದiUಂದ #ಾನು ಪ&ƒಾ ೕನ ಾP
„ i ೆiೕನು,
ನು, ನನ ೆ ಪ&ƒೆ ಬಂದ ಸಂತರ #ಾನು ತ)@/ ೊಂಡು ಆಸ@Qೆ& ೆ
Cೋಗ ೇ ೆನು.ವಷ ರ K -ೕನು ಎ K ಾದರೂ N> CೋP #ಾನು Cೊjೆಬjೆ ಾ>ದ
ಬ ೆt ಾU ಾದರೂ CೇzದDೆ,
CೇzದDೆ, -ನ.ನು. ಇ k
K ೕ ೊಂದು
ೊಂದು CಾಕುQೆ=ೕ#ೆ ಅಂQಾ Aೕವದ
ಧಮd CಾdರುQಾ=#ೆ.
ೆ
#ಾಂಕ : 10-05-2023 ರಂದು #ಾನು ಮತು= ನನ. ತಂ ೆ QಾYಯವರ
9ೊQೆ ಅಮೃತಸರ ಸ1ಣ ಮಂ ರ ದಶ ನ ೆeಂದು Cೋ ಾಗ D ಸಮಯದ K ನನ.
ಗಂಡನು ಸದU ೇವ;ಾ†ನ ೆe ಬಂ ದiನು D ಸಮಯದ K ನನ.ನು. #ೋ> #ೋಡದ Cಾ ೆ
ನ-.ಂದ ದೂರ Cೋಗಲು ಪ&ಯ'./ದನು. #ಾನು DvÀ£À ಂ ೆkೕ CೋP F Uೕ> ಏ ೆ
ನಡುದು ೊಳxy'= ಾi #ಾನು -ನ. ಲಗ. Cೆಂಡ' ಇ ೆiೕ#ೆ ಅಂQಾ ಎಷೂ 'z/ Cೇzದರೂ
'zದು ೊಳy ಲK. ನಂತರ ತನ. ಮ#ೆ ೆ CೋP ಅ#ೋನ ನಂಬUಂದ ದೂರOಾˆ ಾ>
#ಾನು ೇDೆ ಮದುOೆ ಾ> ೊಳxy'= ೆiೕ#ೆ ಅವರು ನನ ೆ ºÀt, ಬಂ ಾರ ಆ/=ಯನು.
ೊಡು'= ಾiDೆ ಅದ ೆe ೇDೆ ಮದುOೆ ಾ> ೊಳxy'= ೆiೕ#ೆ ಅಂQಾ '-ೕನು ನನ ೆ Oಾಹ
fೆŠೕದ#ೆ ೊಡು ಇಲK ದiDೆ -ನ ೆ ಗೂಂjಾಗz ೆ ಹvw -ನ.ನು. ೊಲKಲುK CೇಳxQೆ=ೕ#ೆ
ಅಂQಾ Aೕವದ ಧಮd CಾdರುQಾ=#ೆ.ೆ.
ೕPರುOಾಗ ನನ. ಗಂಡನ ಮ#ೆಯವರು ಮದುOೆ ಾದ ೆಲವT ನಗಳ K
ಆರZQೆಯನು. ಇಟು ೊಳxyQೆ=ೕOೆ ಅಂQಾ ನನ ೆ ಸುಳxy Cೇz ನನ.ನು. ಗಂಡನ ಮ#ೆ ೆ
ಕDೆY/ ೊಂ>ರುQಾ=Dೆ. ನಂತರ ನನ. ತಂ ೆಯವರು ಮದುOೆ ಾ>ಸುವ
ಮಧ ಸ= ಾರDಾದ DೋT/ಂ0 ಔರಂ ಾ ಾದ (ಮCಾDಾಷE) ಪರಮAೕತ/ಂಗ
ಅಹRದ ಾದ ಗುಜDಾತ ದೂರOಾˆ ಾ>ದDೆ ಅವರು ಪ&ತು ತ=ರ -ೕ>ರುವ ®è.
ಾರಣ ಾನ ರವರು ನನ. ಗಂಡ Cಾಗೂ 1) ಗುರದ ಾಳ ೌರ ಾ1,
ಾವ#ಾದ 2) ಸಂQೋ/ಂ0 ಾ1, ವಯಸು : 59. oೖದುನ#ಾದ
3) ಪರಮAೕತ/ಂ0 ಾt ಇತನ Cೆಂಡ' ಾದ 4) ಹರqತ ೌರ, #ಾದ- ಾದ
5) qೕ#ಾ] ೌರ Mೋ ಾ Cಾಗೂ ಅQೆ=ಯ ಅವ1 ಾದ 6) rೕಮMಾ ೌರ
7) ಜಸqಂದ /ಂ0 8) ರ ೕಂದ&/ಂ0 ಮತು= ಅQೆ=ಯ ತಂP ಾದ 9) #ೋ-
12
ಇವDೆಲKರ oೕMೆ ಕ˜ಣ ಕ&ಮ ೈ ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ ಸೂಕ=Oಾದ #ಾ ಯ
ೊರd/ ೊಡ ೇ ೆಂದು ೊಟ ಾ .
ಸ†ಳ : ೆಳ ಾ ಾ Sಾರ
¢£ÁAPÀ: 07-06-2023 ¸À»/-
(%&ೕಮ', ಹರ)&ೕ* ೌರ ಸ-./ಂ0 ಾ)"
(Emphasis added)
At the time of registration of the crime, the offence under Section
377 of the IPC - committing an act of unnatural sex was not
alleged. The investigation revealed certain gory details of the acts
of the husband. It is then the offence under Section 307 of the IPC
- attempt to murder is invoked against the husband including the
offences punishable under Dowry Prohibition Act. The summary of
the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 would point at the
allegations or individual overt acts against few of the petitioners. It
reads as follows:
"17. Brief facts of the case
ಘನ #ಾ ಾಲಯದ ಅ? ಾರ ›ೇತ&ವ#ೊ.ಳ ೊಂಡ ಮ ಾ ೕ ಾ ೆ ೆಳ ಾ
ನಗರ Oಾ )=ಯAiÀÄ°è §gÀĪÀ PÀ¦¯ÉñÀégÀ ಾMೋ-ಯ°è, /Jಎ ನಂ:4157/13 ಎ #ೇದiರ K
ಇದರ Kಯ ) ಾ ಾರಳ ತಂ ೆ ;ಾ.ಅ ನಂ:08 £ÉÃgÀªÀgÀ ªÀģɬÄzÀÄÝ, ಇದರ Kಯ
ಾಲಂ ನಂ: 12 ರ K ನಮೂ /ದ ಆDೋ)ತರು ಕೂ> ೊಂಡು ) ಾ ೆ (ವಧು ನನು.)
£ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06/11/2020 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ® ಾU ೆ ೆಳ ಾ ೆ ಬಂದು ;ಾ.ಆ ನಂ: 17
13
#ೇರವರ MಾqÀÓದ K Oಾಸ=ವ ಾ>ರುQಾ=Dೆ. ವರನ ಕುಟುಂಬ ;ಾSಾರಣ ಕುಟುಂಬOಾPದುi,
ಅವರು ವಧು ನ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸರಳ ಸ1Iಾವ ಸಜœನ ನಡQೆ %&ೕಮಂ' ೆ #ೋ> ಅ ಾರ
ಪ& ಾಣದ K ವರದZ ೆ, ಬಂ ಾರದ D¨sÀgÀt ¨É¯É¨Á¼ÀĪÀ §mÉÖ, ºÀt, PÀªÀIJðAiÀÄ¯ï ©°ØAUï,
PÁgï ¨ÉÃrPÉAiÀĤßlÄÖ, D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JwÛ ºÁQ ²æêÀÄAvÀgÁUÀĪÀ C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ ¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ
¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è CzsÀåAiÀÄ£À ªÀiÁr ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄwÛ ªÀgÀ£ÀÄ
ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è PÉƯÁè¥ÀÆgÀzÀ ºÁ¹àl®Ý°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrwÛzÀÄÝ E§âgÀÆ MAzÉà PÀqÉ PÉ®¸À
ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ EzÀÝgÉ ¨sÀ«µÀåPÉÌ M¼ÉîAiÀÄzÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ CAvÁ D±Áéಸ#ೆ, ಭರವ;ೆ ೊಟು ಮದುOೆ ೆ
) ಾ ಯ ಮನಸ ನು. ಒ /ರುQಾ=Dೆ.
¢£ÁAPÀ:28/11/2021 gÀAzÀÄ EzÀgÀ°èAiÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DgÉÆæ C.£ÀA.01
EªÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ GvÀÛgÀ¥ÀæzÉñÀzÀ zÁA¥ÀÆgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ UÀÄgÀÄzÁégÀzÀ°è dgÀÄVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸Á.C.£ÀA:08,
09 ರವU ೆ ) ಾ ಒಬ• ೆ ಮಗ ಾPದiUಂದ ಅ' ಜೃಂಭ ೆYಂದ 5 ವಸಗಳ ಾಲ
ಮದುOೆ ಾ> ೊJ ದುi ಆ ಾಲ ೆe ಆDೋ) ಆ.ನಂ 01, ಆತನ QಾY ಆDೋ) ಅ.ಸಂ:02,
ಆತನ ತಂ ೆ ಆDೋ) ಆ.ನಂ.3. ಆತನ ಅಣ•, ಆDೋ) ಆ ನಂ4, ಆತನ ಅwÛ ೆ ಆDೋ)
ಅ.ನಂ:5, ಆತನ ಅಕe ಆDೋ) ಆ.ನಂ.6, ಆತನ ಅAœ, ಆDೋ) ಅ.ನಂ.7, ಆತನ ಕAನ
ಸCೋದರDಾದ ಆDೋ) ಅ.ನಂ.8 ಮತು= 9, ಆತನ vಕeಮR ಆDೋ) ಅ, ನಂ:10,
ಮದುOೆ ೆ ಮಧ /= ೆ ವ / ಕಮೂ -Jಯ ಮುಂ ಾಳx ಆDೋ) ಅ.ನಂ:11 ಮತು= 12
ಇವDೆ®èರೂ CಾಜUದುj೦ದ ಮಧ /† ೆ ವ /ದ ಆDೋ) ಅ.ನಂ:11 ಮತು= 12 ಇವರು
) ಾ ಯ ತಂ ೆ ೆ - ಸ ಾಜದ°è
ಾಜದ , ಒ ೆyಯ ªÀÄAiÀiÁð ೆ ಇದುi ಅದನು. Cಾಳx ಾಡುವ
ಉ ೆiೕಶ ಂದ Cಾಗೂ ) ಾ Aೕವನವನು. Cಾಳx ಾಡುವ ಉ ೆiೕಶ ಂದ ಉzದ
ಆDೋ)ತDೊಂ ೆ ;ೇU ತಮR ಅಪDಾ?ಕ ಸಂvನ ಉ ೆiೕಶ ಈjೇU ೆ ೆ ವಧು ೆ 40
QೊMೆ
Qೊ Mೆ ಬಂ ಾರ ಆಭರಣ,
ಆಭರಣ, ಒಂದು ವಜ&ದ #ೆPÉ
#ೆ è ;ೇb,
;ೇb, ವರ- ೆ ಬಂ ಾರದ fೈm ಮತು=
ಉಂಗುರ,
ಉಂಗುರ, ಮದುOೆ ೆ ಬಂದ ವರನ ಸಂಬಂ?ಕUಗೂ
ಸಂಬಂ?ಕUಗೂ ೆMೆ ಾಳxವ ಬ•ೆ , ಾdೕJನ°è
ಾdೕJನ ರೂ.
ರೂ.
ರೂ
5000/-
5000/- zÀAvÉ PÉÆlÄÖ ¸À£Á䤸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉý ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
ಮದುOೆಯ ನಂತರ ) ಾ ಗಂಡನ ಮ#ೆ ೆ Cೋ ಾಗ ಆDೋ)ತDೆಲKರೂ
CಾಜUದುi ತಮR ಸಂvನ ಉ ೆiೕಶದಂQೆ ) ಾ ೆ ಾ ೊJ ¯Áè., ಕಮಶ ಯc
„ ಂ
¢ 0 ನಮR CೆಸU ೆ ವUÁðY/ರುವT
ವ Y/ರುವT MಾK, ಅಂQಾ ೇ> ೆಯ-.ಟು
ೆಯ-.ಟು ತಂ•ೆ Qೆ ೆದು
ಆOಾಚ ಶ§Ý
ಶ ಗzಂದ
ಗzಂದ ೈದು Cೊjೆಬjೆ ಾ> ಾನ/ಕ Cಾಗೂ ೈ ಕ dರುಕುಳ ೊಡ
ಹ'=ದರು,
ರು, ಆDೋ) ಅ.
ಅ.ನಂ:
ನಂ:01 ಇವನು ) ಾ ಯ ಇfೆŠಯ ರುದ£OಾP ಬಲವಂತOಾP
) ಾ |ಂ ೆ ಅ ಾನುಷOಾP ಾ&ˆಯಂQೆ ವwð/
ವ / ಅ#ೈಸP ಕOಾP MೈಂPಕ d&k
ಾಡಲು ) ಾ ಸಮR'ಸ ದi ೆe Cೊjೆಬ> ಾ> ಕೂ&ರ ಂ;ೆ ೊಡMಾರಂr/ದನು.
ೊಡMಾರಂr/ದನು.
ಮುಂ ೆ ೆಲ¤ಂದು ವಸದ ನಂತರ ಆDೋ) ಅ.ನಂ:02 ಇವಳx ೆಳPನ 9ಾವ ) ಾ
ಮಲP ಾiಗ ) ಾ ಯನು. ೊಲುKವ ಉ ೆiೕಶ ಂದMೇ fಾಕು ಂದ ಕು'= ೆಯ oೕMೆ
14
Cೊjೆದು ೊMೆ ಾಡಲು ಪ&ಯ'./ದುi, ಇನೂ.zದ ಎMಾK ಆDೋ)ತರು ಇವಳ ಕQೆ
ಮುP/kೕ „> ಅಂQಾ ಪ&fೋ /ರುQಾ=Dೆ,ೆ, ) ಾ ೆ ಆದ ಾಯ ೆe ಉಪfಾರ
ಾ>ಸ ೇ> ಅಂQಾ ಒಂದು ರೂಮR K ಕೂ> Cಾd ಬಂಧನದ°è
ಬಂಧನದ ಟುಟು ಒಬ•Dಾದ ನಂತರ
ಒಬ•ರಂQೆ ಾYiರುQಾ=Dೆ.ೆ.
ಮುಂ ೆ ೆಲ¤ಂದು ವಸದ ನಂತರ ಆDೋ) ಅ.
ಅ.ನಂ:
ನಂ: 10 ಇವಳx „/ -ೕU-ಂದ
) ಾ ಯ Cೊ•ೆ ೆ ೊAœ ಸುಟು ೊMೆ ಾಡಲು ಪ&ಯ'./ದುi ಮQೆ= ಇ ೇ Uೕ'
ಉಪfಾರ ಾ>ಸದಂQೆ ಬಂಧನದ°è
ಬಂಧನದ ಟುಟು ಒಬ•Dಾದ ನಂತರ ಒಬ•ರಂQೆ ಾYiರುQಾ=Dೆ.ೆ.
ಮುಂ ೆ ೆಲ¤ಂದು ವಸದ ನಂತರ ಆDೋ) ಅ.ನಂ:
ನಂ: 05 ಇವಳx ಅಲೂಗjೆ¢ ಪದರು
ಸು ಯುವ ಮ#ೆYಂದ ) ಾ ೆ Cೊjೆದು ಹ¯É
ಹ è, ಾ> ಾಯ ೊz/ರುQಾ= ೆ.ೆ.
ಇದರಂQೆ -ರಂತರOಾP ಾನ/ಕOಾP ಮತು= ೈ ಕOಾP ಂ;ೆ ೊಡMಾರಂr/
) ಾ ಯ ಮದುOೆಯ ಾಲ ೆe Cಾಗೂ ಮದುOೆಯ ನಂತರ ೊಟ ೆMೆ ಾಳxವ ವಜ&,
ಬಂ ಾರದ ಆಭರಣ Cಾಗೂ ಾ&ಪಂvಕ ;ಾ ಾನುಗಳನು. ಅ Kkೕ ಇಟು ೊಂಡು
) ಾ |ಂ ೆ ತಂ•ೆ Qೆ ೆ ದiUಂದ ) ಾ ಯು ಎ)&c-2022 ರ K, ತನ. ತವರು
ಮ#ೆ ಾದ ೆಳ ಾ ೆ ಬಂದುz ರುQಾ= ೆ, ) ಾ ಯು ತನ. ತವರು ಮ#ೆಯ°è
ಮ#ೆಯ ಬಂದು
ಉzದ ಸಮಯದ K ಆDೋ) ಅ.
ಅ.ನಂ:
ನಂ:01 ಇವನು ೆಳ ಾ ಯ ) ಾ ಯ ತವರು ಮ#ೆ ೆ
ಬಂ ಾಗ ) ಾ |ಂ ೆ ತಂ•ೆ Qೆ ೆದು ೈYಂ ಾ Cೊ> ಬ> ಾ> ಾನ/ಕ
ೈ ಕ ಂ;ೆ -ೕ>ದiಲK ೇ,
ೇ, #ಾಂಕ:
#ಾಂಕ:25/
25/08/
08/2022 ರಂದು ) ಾ ಯನು. ೊ¯Áè
ೊ ಪhರಪhರ ೆe
ಕDೆದು ೊಂಡು CೋP ;ಾ.
;ಾ.ಅ.ನಂ:
ನಂ:12 #ೇರವರ MಾqÀ
Mಾ Ñದ°è, ರೂ~ ಬು¥ ಾ> ೊಂಡು
ಉzದು ) ಾ ಯ ಇfೆŠಯ ರುದ£OಾP ಬಲವಂತOಾP ) ಾ |ಂ ೆ
ಅ ಾನುಷOಾP ಕೃತ ಾq ಾ&ˆಯಂQೆ ಆ#ೈಸP ಕOಾP
ಕOಾP MೈಂPಕ d&k ಾ>ದುi
) ಾ ಸಮR'ಸ ೇ ಇ ದ
i i ೆe Cೊ> ಬ> ಾ> ಕೂ&ರ ಂ;ೆ -ೕ>ರುQಾ=#ೆ.ೆ.
#ಾಂಕ:01/03/2023 ರಂದು ಆDೋ) ಆ.ನಂ:08 ಇವನು d& ೆb ಆಡಲು ೆಳ ಾ ೆ
ಬಂದು ) ಾ ೆ ಾ ಾOಾಗ ೊ>ಸು'=U ಕಮ% ಯc „ ¢ಂ0 ಾOಾಗ
ವ ಾ Yಸು'=U ಅಂQಾ ೇ> ೆ ಇಟು ೊಡ ದiDೆ fೆwೕದನ ೊಟು ೇDೆ ಮದುOೆ
ಾಡುQೆ=ೕOೆ -ನ ೆ Aೕವ ಸ ತ ಉzಸುವT MಾK, ಅಂQಾ CೆದU ೆ Cಾd CೋPರುQಾ=#ೆ.
#ಾಂಕ: 10/05/2023 ರಂದು ) ಾ ೇವರ ದಶ ನ ೆeಂದು ಅಮೃತಸರ ೆe
Cೋ ಾಗ ಆDೋ) ಅ.ನಂ:01 ಇವನು ಅ°è ೆ ಬಂ ದiನು. #ೋ> ಾತ#ಾ>ಸಲು
Cೋ ಾಗ ) ಾ ೆ 'ರಸeU/ fೆŠೕದನ. ೊಡುವT ಾP ೇDೆ ಮದುOೆ
15
ಾ> ೊಳxyವT ಾP Cೇz ನುP/ ೊಟು CೋPದುi, ಸಹ#ೆ Qೆ ೆದು ೊಂಡು ಬರು'=ದi
) ಾ ಾರಳ ಸಹನQೆ qೕU ಈಗ ಾನೂನು ಕ&ಮ ೆe ಮುಂ ಾPರುQಾ= ೆ.
#ಾಂಕ:05/11/2020 Uಂದ #ಾಂಕ: 10/05/2023 ರವU ೆPನ ನಡು ನ ಅವ?ಯ K
ಇದರ Kಯ ಾಲಂ ನಂ: 12 ರ K ನಮೂ /ದ ಆDೋ)ತDೆಲKರೂ Cೊಂಚು Cಾd ಅಪDಾ?ಕ
ಸ ಾನ ದುರು ೆiೕಶ Cೊಂ ಈ ಪ& ಾರ oೕ ನಂQೆ ಒಂದರ ನಂತರ ಒಂದು ಕೃತ ಗಳನು.
J¸ÀUÀÄvÁÛ, ¥ÀæZÉÆâ¸ÀÄvÁÛ §AzÀÄ PÀ®A:498J, 109, 120©, 143, 323, 324, 343, 307, 377,
504, 506 ¸ÀºÀ PÀ®A: 149 L¦¹ 3, 4 & 6 >) ಾkiರ>ಯ K ಅಪDಾಧ ೈ ರುQಾ=Dೆ."
(Emphasis added)
The drawing up of the summary of the charge sheet is based upon
the statements made by several persons and on consideration of
documents.
9. A cursory perusal at the summary of the charge sheet
would indicate horrendous offences against the husband who is not
before the Court, accused No.2, mother-in-law and accused No.5,
brother-in-law and accused No.10 again the sister of the husband.
Barring these four, there is no allegation of commission of the
offences or individual overt acts against any other accused. Every
other accused is without any rhyme or reason drawn into the web
of crime. It is probably due to the agony that the wife has
undergone with the husband and the mother-in-law that every
16
other person is drawn into the web of crime. But, these are the
acts of setting the criminal law into motion. Unless there is specific
overt acts of ingredients of the offences, the proceedings under
criminal justice system cannot be permitted to be continued.
10. Against, accused No.2 - mother-in-law, there are
individual overt acts of wanting to kill the complainant. Against
accused No.10, it is alleged that she has poured boiling water on
the stomach of the complainant. Against accused No.5, it is alleged
that he has assaulted the complainant with an instrument. Accused
No.12 is said to be the owner of a lodge in which place, the couple
did reside for a few days. Accused No.12 has nothing to do with
these proceedings. So are the other accused. For illustration,
accused No.7 is the grandmother of the husband and at the time of
filing of the petition, she was 82 years old and now she is 85 years
old. She is said to be incapable of getting up even. She is alleged
of assault. Likewise, others who do not even reside with the couple
have been dragged into the proceedings. Therefore, finding no
allegations against all other accused, except accused Nos. 2, 5, and
17
10, they have been dragged into the web of crime without any
rhyme or reason.
11. Above all, all the allegations against the husband are
unpardonable. Permitting further proceedings against the
petitioners who have nothing to do, as noted hereinabove, would
become an abuse of the process of the law; result in miscarriage of
justice and run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR1 wherein it is 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 in-
laws Appellants 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 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
1
2022 SCC Online SC 162
18
increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A
IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against
the husband and his relatives.
12. This Court in its judgment in Rajesh
4
Sharma v. State of U.P. , 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 Act 46 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. Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court
in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar5, 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-A IPC 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-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence
has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the
19
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 grandfathers
and grand-mothers of the husbands, their
sisters living abroad for decades are
arrested."
14. Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand6, it
has also been observed:--
"32. It is a matter of common experience
that most of these complaints under section 498A
IPC 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 498A 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 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.
20
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 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."
15. In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP7, 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. Rao v. L.H.V.
Prasad reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also
21
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:
"12....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 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."
16. Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of
Telangana8, it was also observed that:--
"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
specific instances of their involvement in the crime
are made out."
22
17. The above-mentioned decisions clearly
demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances
expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A
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.
18. 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 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 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
23
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.
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 in-laws Appellants 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 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 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)
This judgment is subsequently followed by the Apex Court in the
case of PAYAL SHARMA v. STATE OF PUNJAB2 wherein, it is
held as follows:
2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3473
24
"18. It is true that the contention of the complainant
is that even before the High Court took up the matter for
consideration the challan was filed and the said fact skipped
the attention of the High Court and, in fact, in such
circumstances, the High Court ought not have quashed the
FIR and all further proceedings qua respondent No. 6. A
mere glance of the impugned order would reveal that the
High Court had actually taken note of the fact of filing of
challan before the trial Court. In this context, it is relevant to
note the decision in Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra
Pradesh, this Court held that a petition could be filed under
Section 482, Cr. P.C., for quashing the chargesheet even
before framing of the charges and that it would not be in the
interest of justice to reject the application merely on the
ground that the accused concerned could argue legal and
factual issues at the time of framing of charges. We have no
doubt with respect to the scope and amplitude of the
inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P.C., which virtually
saves inherent powers of the High Court that the said power
could be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In such
circumstances if the High Court feels that ends of justice
requires that an order should be made in the application,
technicality shall not deter the court from passing necessary
orders to secure ends of justice.
19. In the said circumstances, the question is whether
the factum of filing of final report prior to filing of the
petition under Section 482, Cr. P.C., should be a ground for
interfering with the impugned judgment whereunder the
subject FIR and all further proceedings therefore, were
quashed qua accused No. 6 and declined to do so in the case
of accused No. 5. The fact that the High Court was appraised
of the factum of filing of final report is evident from the fact
that the said position was specifically mentioned in the
impugned order itself. In the contextual situation, while
considering the aforesaid question it is relevant to refer to
the so-called specific allegations made against the accused
Nos. 5 and 6 in the FIR. It is alleged that accused Nos. 2 and
3 who are respectively the father-in-law and mother-in-law
of the complainant's daughter demanded Rs. 15 lakhs from
her daughter for the purpose of enabling to obtain visa and
ticket for her travel to join her husband in Canada and told
25
her to hand over the same to accused Nos. 5 and 6 who had
been consulting the travel agent for that purpose.
Furthermore, it was alleged therein that in pursuance the
same amount of Rs. 2 lakhs was given to accused Nos. 2 and
3. In the final report also the same accusation has been
made. In this context, it is relevant to note that both the FIR
and the final report would reveal that the husband of the
complainant's daughter subsequently left for Canada on
02.10.2020. Now it is to be noted that the very contention of
accused Nos. 5 and 6 is that they were residing in a different
city viz., at Mohali in Punjab and that the complainant's
daughter was residing in her matrimonial home at Jalandhar
in Punjab. The said fact is indisputable as it is evident from
the materials on record. Taking note of the nature of their
relation with husband of the complainant's daughter and the
fact that both the families were residing in different cities
and in the conspicuous absence of allegation/accusation that
they came to the place where complainant's daughter was
residing and committed cognizable offence as alleged on any
particular date or dates, we are at a loss to understand how
the complainant could contend that the quashment of the
proceedings based on subject FIR against the accused No. 6
warrants appellate interference and how they could justify
the disinclination to interfere with and qua the FIR and all
subsequent proceedings qua accused No. 5. Another
allegation/accusation against the accused Nos. 5 and 6 is
that he along with other accused made complainant's
daughter to believe that house at 6, Gurunagar, near Goal
Market, Mithapur Road, Jalandhar belongs to the husband of
the complainant's daughter viz., the first accused which later
came to the knowledge of the complainant and her daughter
to be incorrect. In short, a careful scanning of the FIR and
the subsequently filed final report would show that the latter
contains only reiteration of the allegations in the FIR qua
accused Nos. 5 and 6. Evidently in the final report based on
such bald assertions different sections were put against
them.
20. The decisions referred above on the subject
of exercise of power under Section 482, Cr. P.C.,
would undoubtedly cast a duty on the Courts to
consider the contentions that there is lack of specific
allegations against the accused concerned to
26
constitute the offence(s) alleged against a relative or
that the implication was nothing but an over
implication to pressurise the family of the husband to
yield to the demands. The Courts cannot refrain from
discharging the obligation to consider such
contentions. It appears that in the case on hand
despite raising of specific contentions which require
deeper consideration, may be taking note of the
submissions made on behalf of the complainant that
the challan was presented and the matter stood listed
for framing charges and hence, it would be open to
accused No. 5 to raise all plea at the time of framing of
the charges, the Court refrained itself from
considering the contentions raised against accused
No. 5.
21. As noticed hereinbefore except what was observed
in paragraph 7, as extracted above, there is total non-
consideration of the serious contentions of accused No. 5. In
the context of the case, it is worthwhile to note that such
accusations have actually come not from the horse's mouth
and only from the father of the wife of the first accused.
That apart, except making vague allegations against
accused Nos. 5 and 6, the complainant did not make
specific allegation with details against them with
details. A scanning of the materials on record would
reveal that the complainant was fully aware of the fact
that accused Nos. 5 and 6 were living in Mohali in
Punjab whereas his daughter was living in Jalandhar.
Even then he did not state when the appellant visited
the place where his daughter was living. As noted
above, the marriage of the daughter of the
complainant with the first accused-Amit Sharma was
solemnised on 23.02.2019 and Amit Sharma left for
Canada on 07.03.2019. The daughter of the second
respondent-claimant stayed back in her matrimonial
home at Jalandhar and later on 02.12.2019 she also
left for Canada.
22. The fact that the present complaint which
ultimately culminated in the impugned order was filed by the
complainant subsequent to the grant of divorce between the
first accused and the complainant's daughter, is a fact
27
discernible and indisputable. This had occurred in Canada. A
perusal of the final report would reveal that even after the
investigation no material whatsoever worthy to connect the
appellant with the offences was seen collected. Therefore,
the question is whether the vague, and at the same
time, highly exaggerated versions of FIR and the
proceedings subsequent thereto can be permitted to
be proceeded against accused Nos. 5 and 6. In short,
on a careful consideration of FIR and the final report
and materials we have no hesitation to hold that there
is nothing on record to suggest, even prima facie that
they would constitute the alleged offences against the
accused No. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances and
based on the decisions of this Court as
referred supra viz., Preeti Gupta's case, Geeta
Mehrotra's case and Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam's
case, the subject FIR and all further proceedings
therefrom against accused No. 5 are liable to be
quashed and rightly they were quashed by the High
Court. We do not find any reason to interfere with the
impugned order to that effect qua accused No. 6. In
other words, Criminal Appeal arising from SLP(Crl.)
No. 13579 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed.
23. A scanning of the FIR and the subsequently filed
final report would reveal that the allegation against accused
No. 5, who is the wife of accused No. 6, are also of the same
nature. It is relevant to note that she is related to the
husband of complainant's daughter only through her
marriage with cousin brother of the first accused viz.,
accused No. 6. When the subject FIR and all further
proceedings pursuant therefrom were quashed against the
said cousin brother viz., accused No. 6, the same reasons
must apply to the case of accused No. 5 as well. We are of
the considered view that the High Court ought to have
interfered and quashed the subject FIR and all other
proceedings therefrom in relation to accused No. 5 viz., the
wife of accused No. 6 as well. To secure interest of justice in
the circumstances obtained, we are of the considered view
that filing of the charge sheet cannot be a reason for
interfering with impugned order in respect of accused No. 6
or rejecting the prayer of accused No. 5 to quash the
proceedings and to make them to argue or to raise the legal
28
and factual issues at the stage of framing of the charges. It
is evident that making them to face the trial based on the
allegations or accusation as referred above would be nothing
but an abuse of process of court."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of unequivocal facts narrated hereinabove as also
the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments,
permitting trial against few of the petitioners would undoubtedly
result in patent injustice.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Insofar as accused Nos.3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are
concerned, the criminal petition is allowed and
proceedings against the said accused stand quashed.
(iii) Insofar as accused Nos.2, 5 and 10 are concerned,
the criminal petition stands dismissed.
(iv) It is made clear that the observations made in the
course of the order are only for the purpose of
consideration of the case of petitioners under Section
29
482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or
influence the proceedings against the other accused.
Sd/-
______________________
JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
nvj
CT:SS