Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.Nagaprasanna, J.
Mohammad Shameer - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 521 of 2022
Decided On : 10-05-2022
ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW - Criminal Proceedings - Ss. 506, 498A, 504, 307, 313, 323, 354, 114 and 34 of the IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Summary of the charge sheet repetition of words found in the complaint is found except quoting certain instances of torture by the husband. Both in the complaint and in the summary of the charge sheet there is nothing that can be found against other members of the family/petitioners 2 to 8. With regard to the husband, there are instances, but whether they would suffice for permitting further proceedings to be continued against the husband is what is to be answered.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners in the subject petition call in question proceedings in C.C.No.3121 of 2021 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davangere arising out of Crime No.112 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Ss. 506, 498A, 504, 307, 313, 323, 354, 114 and 34 of the IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The 1st petitioner and the complainant got married on 24/10/2020. The relationship between the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent appears to have turned irretrievably sore not far off of the marriage. Incompatibility drives the 1st petitioner and the 2nd respondent/complainant to live separately. The petitioners though contend certain instances for the complainant to move away from the house, the fact remains that the complainant did move away from the matrimonial house and began to reside at her parents' house.
Finding of the Court:
The complaint narrates several allegations against the 1st petitioner/husband and vague and bald statements against all other members of the family. Since the entire issue initially sprang from the complaint, it is necessary to quote the complaint for the purpose of ready reference. The Civil Court hearing the plaintiffs' counsel grants an ad-interim injunction against the 2nd respondent/complainant and her family members in interfering or causing obstruction to the peaceful possession of the property. The complaint narrates several allegations against the 1st petitioner/husband and vague and bald statements against all other members of the family. Since the entire issue initially sprang from the complaint, it is necessary to quote the complaint for the purpose of ready reference.
Issues: Whether the proceedings instituted by the 2nd respondent/wife should be permitted to be continued against the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: The Apex Court in the case of MADHAVRAO JIWAJIRAO SCINDIA V. SAMBHAJIRAO CHANDROJIRAO ANGRE,(1988) 1 SCC 692 has held as follows: The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.
Final Decision: The proceedings in C.C.No.3121 of 2021 pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davangere, stand quashed.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners in the subject petition call in question proceedings in C.C.No.3121 of 2021 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Davangere arising out of Crime No.112 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Ss. 506, 498A, 504, 307, 313, 323, 354, 114 and 34 of the IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:-
Before embarking upon consideration of the facts in the case it is appropriate to notice the relationship between the protagonists in the alleged episode of crime. 2nd respondent is the complainant and 1st petitioner/accused No.1 is her husband; 2nd petitioner/accused No.2 is her father-in-law; 3rd petitioner/accused No.3 is her mother-in-law; 4th petitioner/accused No.4 is the grand-mother of the 1st petitioner/husband; 5th petitioner/ accused No.5 is the brother of the 1st petitioner; 6th petitioner/ accused No.6 is the sister-inlaw; 7th petitioner/accused No.7 is sister-in-law's husband and 8th petitioner/accused No.8 is a distant relative of petitioner No.1.
3. The 1st petitioner and the complainant got married on 24/10/2020. The relationship of the complainant and the 1st petitioner gets irrevocably strained. A complaint was lodged by the 2nd petitioner herein against alleging harassment being caused by the complainant while residing in the house of in-laws before the Vidyanagar Police, Davangere. This was treated as a non-cognizable case and thereto NCR No.137 of 2020 was registered on 12/12/2020, after which, it appears that the complainant moves away from the matrimonial house and began to reside in her parents' house. On 8/3/2021 the complainant causes a legal notice against the petitioners alleging several instances of harassment meted out to her by the petitioners. This is replied to by the petitioners on 15/3/2021.
4. Things standing thus, apprehending threat from the hands of the complainant, the 1st petitioner/husband files O.S. No.125 of 2021 seeking restraint against the 2nd respondent/ complainant in interfering with the affairs in the house of the petitioners. The trial Court grants an ad-interim injunction in the said civil suit by its order dtd. 20/3/2021. After which, the 1st petitioner files another suit for divorce in O.S.No.223 of 2021 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Chitradurga. The said suit is filed on 18/6/2021.
5. After the aforesaid proceedings, the complainant/2nd respondent registers the impugned complaint, pursuant to which, a FIR is registered in Crime No.112 of 2021 for offences punishable under Ss. 506, 498A, 504, 307, 313, 323, 354, 114 and 34 of the IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet on 10/12/2021 for the offences punishable under Ss. 506, 498A, 504,307, 313, 323, 354, 114 and 34 of the IPC and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the aforesaid offences on 23/12/2021. It is at that juncture the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the subject criminal petition.
6. Heard the learned senior counsel Mr. Hashmath Pasha appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.J.Rohith, learned High Court Government representing the 1st respondent/State. The 2nd respondent/complainant is served and unrepresented.
7. The learned senior counsel would contend that the relationship between the husband and the wife turned sore within few weeks after marriage. Incompatibility between the two became irrevocable and in that light several proceedings are instituted by the husband against the wife and the wife causing notices against the husband and his family members. After the husband initiating proceedings - one suit seeking restraint of entry of the complainant into the house of the petitioners and the other suit for divorce are filed and as a counter-blast, the wife registers a complaint against all the members of the family who are no
The court has the power to quash criminal proceedings if the uncontroverted allegations do not prima facie establish the offence and if the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak, and no useful ....
Point of Law : 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 co....
Point of law : If the allegations themselves are so absurd that no reasonable man would accept the same, the High Court could not have thrown its arms in the air and expressed its inability to do any....
Section 498A of IPC reads as husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
In matrimonial disputes, general allegations against family members lack legal standing unless substantiated by specific claims, warranting quashing proceedings against those without direct involveme....
Court emphasized that general and omnibus allegations against in-laws under Section 498A IPC do not warrant prosecution, warning against misuse of the law in matrimonial disputes.
The court ruled that vague allegations of cruelty and dowry demands without specifics do not justify criminal prosecution, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of such claims.
The court emphasized the need for specific allegations in matrimonial disputes to prevent misuse of law, particularly Section 498A IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
