It would be quite material to note that in a very recent legal development, we witnessed how the Kalaburagi Bench of Karnataka High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled XXX Vs State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 200827 of 2022 and cited in NC: 2024:KHC-K:2651 that was pronounced just recently on March 28, 2024 candidly conceded that family members of husband are often implicated in cases under Section 498A of IPC though there is no evidence against them. We must note here that in this leading case, the Bench deliberated meticulously in detail on a petition that had been filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking to nullify the charges that had been levelled against ten accused individuals in a domestic dispute case. We also ought to note that the case had been registered under Crime No. 133/2021 at Basavakalyan Town Police Station that pertained to alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 498A, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
To be sure, we need to note that upon a thorough and indepth consideration of the arguments presented, Justice Joshi weighed minutely the validity of the allegations against each accused party. He noted the absence of specific and discernible accusations against accused Nos. 3 to 10, apart from vague references in the complaint. The Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice CM Joshi while strongly emphasizing this valid point minced just no words to state unequivocally that:
General and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial.
Just like in several other similar cases, we see that the Court highlighted the prevalent brazen misuse of much dreaded Section 498A of the IPC commonly seen in cases where even very minor disputes between couples are exaggerated to implicate the extended family members. It must be borne in mind that Hon'ble Mr Justice Joshi underscored the immense importance of scrutinizing the genuineness of the allegations levelled to prevent unwarranted prosecution as has been seen in many other leading cases of similar kind. In a nuanced ruling, we must note that the court granted partial relief to the petitioners. The charges against accused Nos. 3 to 10 were quashed, citing insufficient evidence and remote involvement in the alleged harassment. However, what merits immense consideration is that the trial against accused Nos. 1 and 2 was directed by the High Court to proceed before the lower court.
There can be no gainsaying that it is high time and Centre must make the necessary amendments in rape laws and dowry laws which are so often misused many times by the women and her relatives by falsely implicating the men and his parents and relatives which should certainly no longer now be allowed to go unpunished, unaccounted and unhindered under any circumstances any longer and those lodging vexatious and false complaints must be made to pay very huge compensation and should be jailed also for a term of two to three years at least and similarly where the Court finds clearly that the investigating officer intentionally conducts a mala fide and biased investigation to deliberately frame innocents must be punished most strictly! No denying it!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr Justice CM Joshi of Kalaburagi Bench of Karnataka High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent-State. Though respondent No.2 had appeared through her counsel, there was no representation on her behalf.
As we see, the Bench discloses in para 2 that:
Accused Nos. 1 to 10 have approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the FIR and the chargesheet registered against them in CC No.06/2022 (arising out of Crime No.133/2021) of Basavakalyana Town P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 498A, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 3 that:
The complainant who is the wife of accused No.1 filed a complaint alleging that the marriage of the complainant and accused No.1 took place on 07-12-2014 and thereafter, they were blessed with two daughters. It was alleged that for two years, the relationship was cordial and they did not get any child during that period and therefore, accused No.2, the mother-in-law of the complainant and others had started mental and physical harassment to her. It was further alleged that the husband and his family members had demanded gold at the time of baby showers of the complainant and later, the mother-in-law was insisting that clothes and other requirement had to be met by the parents of the complainant. There were tauntings by the complainant and the gold belonging to the complainant was given to the other relatives of the accused.
The complaint narrates several incidents like the complainant was made to stay in the room and accused used to state that accused No.1 would marry another lady and that the complainant would be killed by using rat poison. It was also alleged that there were also harassment regarding the phone calls and accused No.2 was insisting that the complainant should call the sisters of accused No.1. It is also alleged that whenever the children are suffering from fever, accused No.1 used to bring medicine prescribed by the Doctors and he was not allowing the complainant to give Ayurveda treatment to the children. Several such incidents were mentioned in the complaint and it was alleged that since 7 years, such harassment was given and in the said tension her father succumbed to death. Therefore, she had sought for action against all the accused. After registration of the case, the Investigating Officer had investigated the matter and ultimately, filed the chargesheet against accused Nos. 1 to 10.
As it turned out, the Bench then enunciates in para 4 that:
Now accused Nos. 1 to 10 have approached this Court stating that there are no discernible and specific allegations against these petitioners which would constitute an offence. It is contended that the complainant makes omnibus allegations against all the accused and specific incident of harassment or assault or any such acts committed by accused are not narrated either by the complainant or any of the witnesses cited by the prosecution. Therefore, it is contended that the case against the petitioners be quashed.
While citing the relevant case laws, the Bench hastens to add in para 6 that, It is relevant to note that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and other 1 2022 AIAR (Criminal) 338 considers the various judgments rendered by the Apex Court concerning an offence under Section 498A of IPC, right from the judgment in the case of Rajesh Sharma and others Vs. State of UP, the Apex court has chronicled the latest judgment in the case of K. Subba Rao Vs. The State of Telangana 2018 (14) SCC 452 and ultimately, in para 22 of its judgment it holds as below:
22. 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.
Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench mandates in para 7 that:
It is pertinent to note that the provisions of Section 498 of IPC are quite often misused and minor differences between the couple are being brought to the Court unnecessarily by roping in all the family members of the husband, who are staying elsewhere than the place of stay of the couple. In fact, there would not be any evidence to show that the relatives of the husband had also a role in the alleged dispute between the husband and wife. The differences between the couple may be for various reasons, but such reasons are camouflaged for reasons which really did not happen so that the case is brought within the purview of 498A of IPC. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the reason for the dispute between the husband and wife is that, the couple were staying at Mumbai and accused No.1 was working as a Software Engineer. During COVID times, they had returned to XXX XXX and when their child was about six months old, the mother of the complainant died at Bangalore, due to COVID. Accused No.1 did not agree that the complainant and the children should travel to Bangalore for the last rituals during COVID and that was the reason, which resulted in the present complaint.
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 8 that:
Be that as it may, it is a matter to be considered at the time of the trial. What is relevant to note in the present case is that, the FIR which is handwritten by the complainant mainly allege that the harassment was meted out by accused No.1 and 2. The involvement of accused Nos. 3 to 10 is remote. Accused Nos. 3 to 10 were not residing at Mumbai where the couple lived. It is evident that accused Nos. 3 to 10 are the residents of and such other places. None of them were residing at the place of residence of accused No.1. Therefore, the involvement of accused Nos. 3 to 10 in the alleged harassment meted out to the complainant is not forthcoming either from the FIR or from the investigation papers. Such involvement of accused Nos. 3 to 10 is only in the form of omnibus allegations against them and specific details of their harassment is not narrated.
Finally and as a corollary, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 9 that, Therefore, in the light of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan kausar @ Sonam and others Vs. State of Bihar and other referred supra, it would not be proper to continue the prosecution of accused Nos.3 to 10. The gist of the allegations made in the complaint with specific details is only available as against accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:
ORDER
- The petition is allowed in part.
- The proceedings in Crime No 133/2021 registered by Basavakalyan Town P.S. for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 498A read with Section 34 of IPC now pending in CC No.6/2022 on the file of Civil Judge and JMFXC, Basavakalyan, so far as petitioner Nos. 3 to 10 are concerned is quashed.
- Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2/accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall face the trial before the trial Court.
In a nutshell, we thus see that the Kalaburagi Bench of Karnataka High Court has taken a very strong exception to the general tendency that has developed over the years to quickly implicate most wrongly all the family members of the accused to settle personal scores. It is high time and the time is ripe to now put a permanent lid to such most gross abuse of laws that are meant for the safety of women and definitely not for abusing them and worst of all those women and her relatives who abuse such laws we see are just not punished at all mostly which is just not tenable under any circumstances as it makes a complete mockery of the very concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution!
It is high time to jail those women and her parents and relatives at least for few years who ensure false cases are lodged against husband and his relatives and simultaneously direct such women and her relatives to pay huge compensation of money also so that no woman can ever dare to most maliciously lodge false complaint against a men or his parents or his relatives without any bona fide ground which definitely takes a huge toll on their whole life and yet neither women nor her parents and relatives who abetted her to file false cases are ever brought to book or punished which is the saddest part of the whole saga!
While taking the most pragmatic approach, the Karnataka High Court after perusing the facts of the case and all the material that was placed before it, we thus see quite clearly that the Court very rightly quashes the criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 3 to 10 citing insufficient evidence and remote involvement in the alleged harassment. However, we must definitely note here that the trial against accused Nos. 1 and 2 was directed by the High Court to proceed before the lower court. Very rightly so!
