IMPORTANT POINT
Dowry offences – Relatives of husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in crime are made out.

ORDER

The petitioners who are accused 2 and 3 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.56 of 2022 for offences punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act (‘the Act’ for short.

2. Heard Sri K. S. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Harish Ganapathi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Pruthveen Prahalhad, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of 2nd respondent/complainant who is the wife of accused No.1, who is not before this Court. The marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant takes place on 24-10-2021. After about two months of marriage, accused No.1 flies to Germany for his work. The relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant flounders and floundering of relationship results in a complaint being registered before the jurisdictional police by the complainant in Crime No.56 of 2022 for the aforesaid offences. The registration of crime against the accused has driven accused 2 and 3, the father-in-law and mother-in-law to this Court calling in question the very registration of crime. This Court, in terms of its order dated 01-08-2022, grants an interim order of stay of further investigation qua the petitioners. Therefore, further investigation qua the petitioners has not moved forward.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would take this Court through the complaint to contend that there are no ingredients in the complaint which would lead as a foundation for the offences punishable under Section 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act qua the petitioners. All the allegations and grievances are against accused No.1/husband and the father-in-law and mother-in-law have nothing to do with the squabble between the husband and the wife. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainant would refute the submissions to contend that there are clear allegations against all the accused. Overt acts are specifically indicated in the complaint which would definitely become the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC. He would seek dismissal of the petition. As an added contention, the learned counsel for the complainant would submit that the Police have directed the complainant to write the complaint in Kannada language, as the complainant had carried to the Police Station a complaint written in English. He would, therefore, rely on the said complaint also.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that against accused No.1/husband the Police have already filed their charge sheet. He would place on record investigation conducted qua the husband/accused No.1 and the charge sheet filed against him. After producing the records he would leave the decision to the hands of the Court, as even according to him, on the finding in the charge sheet there is nothing that would touch up the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC qua the petitioners.

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 and the relationship between the parties are a matter of record. The entire issue has sprung from the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:—

(Matter in Other Language)

In the entire narration of the complaint, it is only in the penultimate paragraph, the names of the petitioners spring, not for any ingredients of offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, but only omnibus hurling of abuses. No specific overt act is indicated in the complaint qua these petitioners as the entire narration in the complaint is the squabble between the husband and the wife. Whether it would be harassment or otherwise is not a subject matter of the present petition.

9. The learned Hi