IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.
Smt. Gopika D/o Basavantappa Hosamani – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 104244 of 2022 (482-)
Decided on : 30-01-2023
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash criminal proceedings against them related to offenses under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 149 IPC. The complaint alleged physical and mental torture for dowry by the petitioner and others.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations were general and omnibus in nature, lacking specific role attribution to the accused. It noted that the complainant's husband had taken her back and settled matrimonial disputes.Issues:
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner were an abuse of process of the Court.Ratio Decidendi:
Citing precedents, the court emphasized that in cases arising from matrimonial disputes, vague allegations without specific attribution do not justify subjecting relatives of the main accused to trial.Final Decision:
The petition was allowed, and all proceedings against the petitioner were quashed as an abuse of process of the Court.ORDER :
This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is preferred to quash the proceedings pending in C.C.No.1034/2015 on the file of the Court of IV JMFC, Belagavi, in so far as the petitioner is concerned.
2. Charge-sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 7 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 149 IPC. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.3 in the charge-sheet.
3. Complaint is lodged by one Arathi Channagouda Hosamani against her husband and in-laws alleging physical and mental torture by them in connection with dowry etc. It is averred in the complaint that her marriage with accused No.1 was performed about 3 years prior and she was looked after properly only for about 3 to 4 months. Thereafter, her husband and in-laws started picking up quarrel with her for petty reasons, abused her physically and mentally and coerced her to bring dowry. It is further alleged that when she returned from her parental home after delivery, her brother-in-law attempted to outrage her modesty by pulling her saree and abused her etc.
4. Petitioner is the sister-in-law of the complainant. Omnibus allegations are made that the accused persons including the petitioner were giving physical and mental harassment to the complainant. In the statements of the mother and brothers of the complainant, there are no specific and distinct allegations made against the petitioner.
5. In the case of Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in the absence of any specific role attributed, it would be unjust if the accused are forced to go through the tribulations of the 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. Criminal trial leading to a eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused and such an exercise must, therefore, be discouraged.
6. Further in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and others Vs. State of UP and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 181, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that
7. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that in a joint memo filed before the Family Court, Belagavi in a petition filed by the complainant seeking maintenance, it is stated that the complainant and her children have been taken back by her husband with an assurance that he will look after their welfare and well being. The said case was hence disposed of as not pressed. Further, M.C.No.149/2021 filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights is also disposed of as not pressed since a memo was filed stating that with the intervention of the elderly persons, matter is settled and respondent-wife joined the company of her husband.
8. In the above facts and circumstances, criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and the same deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the following:
Petition is allowed.
Entire proceedings in CC No.1034/2015 pending on the file of the Court of IV JMFC., Belagavi (arising out of Crime No.65/2015 of APMC Police Station, Belagavi
Kahkashan Kausar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2022) 6 SCC 599
Geeta Mehrotra and others Vs. State of UP and others reported in AIR 2013 SC 181
In cases arising from matrimonial disputes, vague and general allegations without specific attribution do not justify subjecting relatives of the main accused to trial.
The allegations under Section 498-A IPC must be specific; general or vague allegations do not warrant criminal proceedings, protecting against misuse.
The court emphasized the need to curtail vague and omnibus accusations in dowry harassment cases and prevent the abuse of the court's process.
Vague and general allegations in domestic violence cases cannot sustain criminal prosecution; specific instances of harassment must be presented against each accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.