| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1233749 |
| Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Decided On | Nov-10-2021 |
| Case Number | CRL.P 9364/2018 |
| Judge | M.NAGAPRASANNA |
| Appellant | Mrs. Prabhavati Gujar |
| Respondent | State Of Karnataka |
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU R DATED THIS THE10H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9364 OF2018BETWEEN1 MRS. PRABHAVATI GUJAR W/O.LATE SOMNATH MARTAND GUJAR, AGED ABOUT66YEARS, R/AT9 DEEP ANAND CHS, NEXT TO TMC OFFICE, ARUNKUMAR VAIDYA ROAD, PANCHPAKHADI, THANE(W) - 400 602, MAHARASHTRA.
2. MS. SHILPA GUJAR D/O.LATE SOMNATH MARTAND GUJAR, AGED ABOUT41YEARS, R/AT9 II FLOOR, DEEP ANAND CHS, NEXT TO TMC OFFICE, ARUNKUMAR VAIDYA ROAD, PANCHPAKHADI, THANE (W) - 400 602. MAHARASHTRA. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI SAMPATH KUMAR B.K., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING)) 2 AND1 STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE S.P.P, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MRS.SMITHA AJINKYA GUJAR W/O.MR.AJINKYA SOMNATH GUJAR, AGED ABOUT40YEARS, RESIDING AT B-1303, BRIGADE METROPOLIS APARTMENT COMPLEX, GARUDACHAR PALYA, MAHADEVPURA, BENGALURU - 560 048. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SMT.JAYNA KOTHARI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING)) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION482OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED2410.2018 FILED BY THE2d RESPONDENT AND THE FIR DATED2410.2018 REGISTERED BY THE1t RESPONDENT POLICE, MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION IN CR.NO.508/2018 WHICH IS REGISTERED AS CRIME CASE.NO.54210/2018 BEFORE THE XLIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON1409.2021, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 3
ORDERThe petitioners/accused 2 and 3 – mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the 2nd respondent/complainant have called in question the proceedings in Crime No.508 of 2018 which has resulted in registration of criminal case in Crime Case No.54210 of 2018 before the XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mayohall, Bangalore for offence punishable under Sections498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present criminal petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- On 24-12-2004 the complainant marries the son of the 1st petitioner at Thane and the complainant and her husband/accused No.1 thereafter shift to Texas, USA. The complainant and her husband lived in USA between 2004 and 2011. In the month of November, 2011 the complainant and her husband opt to move back to Thane, India since the young two kids that they had were to be taken care of. After their return, the husband of the 1st petitioner died on 5-09-2014. In the 4 month of November, 2014 both the complainant and her husband shift to Bangalore and began to reside at Bangalore.
3. It further transpires that the husband goes back to Thane from Bangalore to take care of his mother, the 1st petitioner, who was ailing and requested the complainant also to shift to an apartment at Thane where the entire family could live together. This happened in the month of April 2018. This appears to have led to certain controversy because of which the complainant filed a domestic violence petition in Criminal Miscellaneous No.141 of 2018, which is pending consideration before the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-I, Mayo Hall, Bangalore seeking maintenance against the husband of the complainant. It is after filing of the said petition for maintenance the complainant also lodges a complaint against the petitioners and her husband and the police registered the complaint as a Non-Cognizable Report (‘NCR’) No.1060 of 2018. 5
4. After the said complaint turning down by the police to register a FIR, the 2nd respondent registers another complaint before the 1st respondent alleging offences under Sections 498A r/w Section 34 of the IPC against the petitioners and her husband. The complaint is registered as FIR in Crime No.508 of 2018 and is now a Crime Case No.54210 of 2018. It is at that juncture the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court seeking annulment of entire proceedings initiated against them.
5. Heard Sri B.K. Sampath Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. B.G.Namitha Mahesh, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Smt. Jayna Kothari, learned Senior Counsel for Sri.Rohan Kothari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complainant and her husband never lived with the petitioners. They were for 7 years living in USA and in the month of November, 2011 the complainant and her husband 6 moved back to Thane and for certain period were staying with the family of the husband together and later both of them moved to Bangalore. There was no occasion for the petitioners who are mother-in-law and sister-in-law to have indulged in any act which would attract the offence under Section 498A of the IPC. The petitioners have in fact taken care of the complainant whenever she did reside with them for whatever period and only because there were problems between the husband and the complainant, the petitioners are also dragged into the picture.
7. He would further submit that initially the complaint lodged resulted in an NCR and it is only later a second complaint is registered for further offences. He submits that it is a fit case in which this Court has to interfere and quash the proceedings against the petitioners.
8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioners also have indulged in several acts of harassment against the complainant as could be seen from the 7 complaint itself, as the complainant was for a brief period staying with the petitioners and it is at that point in time, the petitioners have meted out mental harassment against the complainant and would submit that it is a matter of trial and this Court would not interfere under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. at this stage of the proceedings.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel and the learned senior counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
10. Accused No.1, son of the 1st petitioner and brother of the 2nd petitioner, who is not before this Court, married the complainant on 24-12-2004 at Thane. After the marriage it transpires that both the complainant and accused No.1 shifted to Texas, USA. It also transpires that the complainant and her husband have two children out of their wedlock. The couple after their marriage, as stated hereinabove, began to reside in Texas and later shifted to Bangalore. The petitioners herein who are 8 mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant reside at Thane where marriage took place, but the couple did not reside with the petitioners.
11. The relationship of the couple began to sore as is contended in the complaint that it was due to certain assurances by accused No.1 and those assurances being left unfulfilled. On this ground, the complainant initially registers a complaint before the jurisdictional police at Bangalore. The police after recording the statement of the complainant filed a NCR holding that it was purely a family dispute between the parties and there was no allegation that would necessitate intervention or set the criminal law in motion.
12. The initial complaint was registered on 21.09.2018 and it is in this complaint that a NCR bearing No.1060 of 2018 was issued by the police. After about a month on 24.10.2018, the complainant again filed a complaint alleging certain other facts that were not brought out in the earlier complaint which led to 9 registration of FIR against the petitioners and the husband of the complainant as the offence alleged for the second time was the one punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
13. Since the entire issue springs from the complaint, the complaint in its entirety is extracted hereunder for the purpose of ready reference:
"Sub: Cruelty and harassment meted out to me by my husband With reference to the subject mentioned above, I would like to bring to your notice the following:
1. I have been married to Mr.Ajinkya Somnath Gujar since December 2004. We have two boys, Aditya Ajinkya Gujar (11 year old) and Aarush Ajinkya Gujar (8 year old) and both have been suffering since birth from severe health condition called atopic dermatitis / eczema and profound food allergy issues. 10
2. My husband, Ajinkya Gujar left our house located at the aforesaid address on 20th April, 2018 and has not returned home till date.
3. Post our marriage, my husband Ajinkya Gujar and I initially stayed in the US. We both worked for the same employer while in the US. Since my husband, Ajinkya wanted to settle in US, we purchased an independent house and stayed in that house. Both our kids are US citizens. We had also started our Green Card process with the intent to settle down in the US.
4. Post the first year of our marriage, my husband and his family started mentally and emotionally harassing me on monetary grounds. I was expecting our first child and hence silently bore the abuse. My husband, Ajinkya chose not to talk to me, major part of my first pregnancy, though we lived under the same roof. While his father and mother abused and fought with my parents in India. Due to this behaviour of my husband, Ajinkya and his parents, I went through extreme mental, emotional and physical trauma during my first pregnancy. Post the birth of our first child, Aditya, we faced many challenges on account of his 11 health condition. My husband, Ajinkya took full control of my money. He very cunningly asked me to take care of the home and our child, while he managed our finances. He used to belittle me, crush my self esteem and also limited my spending ability though I was working full time and earning more than he did.
5. Post the birth of our younger son, my husband, Ajinkya forced me to leave US in May 2010 and move to India and stay at his parental home at Thane, Maharashtra. He made false promises that he would return and join me and kids within 3 months. Prior to leaving the US, he forced me to sign a Power of Attorney which he later used to sell our joint ownership home. However, the proceeds from that sale were never shared with me. I was forced to leave the US without a single penny from my US earnings. Till date, there has not been a single transaction from my US account to any of my bank accounts in India. He has usurped all of my hard earned money and continues to enjoy his lavish lifestyle while I live in continuing financial insecurity. My husband, Ajinkya left US and returned to India only in December 2012 (1.5 years 12 later) and joined M/s. Shell India Pvt. Ltd, Bengaluru. Even post his return to India, he never allowed me and our kids to move to Bengaluru and stay with him. I was forced to stay at his parental home for 4.5 years with no financial, physical, or emotional support from him. I was forced to start working in March 2011 to support myself and our kids financially and also to escape the regular abuse and trauma that I suffered at the hands of his mother, Mrs.Prabhavati Gujar and his sister, MS.Shilpa Gujar. His mother and sister have verbally abused me and my parents, enforced superstitious practices that disrespected my identity as a woman, and played with my emotional health by ignoring and isolating my very existence in that home. They also physically, mentally and emotionally abused me to the extent that I lost a lot of weight, my self confidence, and desire to live. Our kids and I suffered physically and emotionally all throughout our stay at his parental home. This affected both my kids' health adversely. We faced social desertion at school and also at home resulting in severe psychological issues with my kids. 13
6. I was again forced by my husband, Ajinkya to leave my corporate job and shift along with our kids to Bengaluru in December 2014. Post my move to Bengaluru, my husband, Ajinkya continued to ill-treat me and continued his bad vices. He also refrained from supporting me financially and emotionally. Once again, to support myself financially while supporting my kids' health issues, I stared taking tuitions for school going kids. Though this doesn't earn me enough; I have tried to barely survive my basic needs. Staying in the same house, my husband, Ajinkya lived a lavish lifestyle whereas I was made to live on pittance.
7. In spite of putting up with all of the above manipulative and inhumane behaviour from my husband, Ajinkya, he has once again left me and our kids to fend for ourselves. Since my husband, Ajinkya left me and kids without any prior notice; I am now at the mercy of my parents to support me and my kids emotionally through this phase of life. My parents occasionally visit me and my kids, and provide whatever support is possible. On the other hand, my husband, Ajinkya has been spying on me and putting false allegations against me and my 14 parents. He has claimed that he has access to the visitor's records to my flat and has been closely monitoring the same. He is now trying to throw me out of my house by alleging that my parents are staying at my house without informing my house owner and thereby harassing me. Since I am staying alone in Bengaluru with my two kids, who time and again regular help with their health issues, I had addressed my concern with my house owner and sought his permission prior to permitting both my parents to stay with me only when me and my kids are in need.
8. In the recent notice from my husband, Ajinkya dated 5th September, 2018, he has accused me of not permitting him to talk or be in touch with our kids. He has also stated that he will not be visiting Bengaluru since he no longer works in M/s. Sehll's Bengaluru office. However, I was shocked to find out that my husband, Ajinkya had visited our apartment complex, Brigade Metropolis, on the 6th of September (Thursday) between 2:30 pm and 3:30 pm and accessed his car (Zen Estillo, registration # KA53MH2544) from the parking lot and has taken it out of the complex. Though he 15 was in the same complex, he did not make any attempts to meet me or our kids who usually return back from school at 3 pm. This recent episode has made me and our kids feel completely insecure since his actions are in complete contrast to what he has been expressing via his notices.
9. In fact, on the 18th of September, when I found my husband's car was missing from the apartment parking spot located at parking number I-106, I had to approach the apartment security manager to find details about the missing car. I was asked to request the same formally and hence I raised a ticket via the community apartment adda portal (Personal Ticket - P122077). As a reply to my ticket, to my utter shock and surprise, the security manager found from the CCTV footages that it was my husband, Ajinkya Gujar himself who had taken away the car on the 6th of September. He entered the complex in his accomplices' car from the front gate at about 2:30 pm and left the complex cleverly from the back gate in his car for reasons best known to him. The reply received from my complex security manager and the recent notice received 16 from my husband, Ajinkya on the 5th of September are annexed to this complaint.
10. This act of my husband, Ajinkya and the recent notice from him, makes it very clear that he is not willing to continue our relationship as husband and wife and that he also wishes to run away from his day to day responsibilities of taking care of me and our kids. He has been time and again sending me notices only to avoid the legal consequences and the clutches of law. Also annexed to this complaint are the notices dated 4th May' 18 and 6th June'18. My husband, Ajinkya's manipulative side is clearly visible in the same notice wherein he is addressing a behavioural issue at my end to be the reason for his escapism. My stay at his parental home without him for 4.5 years is proof enough for my good behaviour and also my endurance to bear abuse. Whereas, all his actions to date only show that he wants to enjoy his life and run away from responsibilities. He, in unison with his mother, Mrs.Prabhavati Somnath Gujar, only wants harass me and our kids by asking us to move out of this house and to relocate to another house in Thane, Maharashtra. My 17 husband, Ajinkya can any time approach my home owner and discontinue my rental agreement, thereby forcing me and our kids to vacate my current place of residence. Both our kids have got accustomed to Bengaluru weather and their health has shown good improvement as compared to when we stayed at Thane. My kid's health is my only priority as of now and I cannot take chances by moving to any other place.
11. I fear that if our kids and I are forced to move to Thane, Maharashtra, it will once again endanger my kids' health thereby refraining them from leading a normal childhood. It will also give easy access to him and his family members to abuse me and kids further.
12. I now fear that our kids and I are being spied upon through my husband's accomplice(s) and hence do not feel safe within my own house. I also fear that my husband, Ajinkya is constantly planning how to make life difficult for me and our kids through his manipulative actions. I am at the peak of emotional distress and have no savings or financial security due to my husband, Ajinkya's consistent actions. 18
13. I had approached Mahadevpura Police Station on 21st September 2018 and an NCR was registered vide NCR No.1060/2018, My husband, Ajinkya was asked to report in 2 days to Mahadevpura Police Station. However, he has not shown up at the Police station till date. This behaviour of his indicates that he has no regard for law.
14. With this complaint, I would like to request you to kindly register a case of harassment against my husband, Ajinkya and take steps as per law. Kindly do the needful and help me bring an end to years of abuse meted out to me at the hands of my husband, Ajinkya Guar and his family. Sd/- Mrs.Smitha Ajinkya Gujar Bengaluru(Date:24/10/18)" If a cursory perusal at the complaint is made, it becomes unmistakably clear that the entire narration of the complaint is with regard to grievances of the complainant against her husband. The only allegation against the petitioners in the complaint is that the husband, in unison with his mother only 19 wanted to harass the complainant and the kids by asking the complainant to move out of the house and relocate herself to a separate house at Thane, Maharashtra. Except this statement in the entire complaint, all the grievances and narration of such grievances relate to her husband.
14. The grievance of the complainant begins when she was living with her husband in USA and narrates up to the incidents at Bangalore. Nowhere it is indicated that the petitioners who are the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law have indulged in any act that would attract the offences under Section 498A of the IPC. The husband/accused No.1 is not before this Court. Accused No.1 is the one who has to defend the action for the allegations in the complaint. Even if the complaint is taken to be true, there is nothing indicative of the fact that the petitioners have indulged in any of the ingredients that are necessary to drive home the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. 20
15. The FIR registered pursuant to the said complaint also narrates all the events against the husband of the complainant. It is only as a passing reference brings out the names of the petitioners and the allegation is that they had indicated that the complainant has to go out of the house and live separately along with her husband. Except this statement, both in the complaint and in the FIR, there is no act that is alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners are not residing with the couple. The couple either visited the place of the petitioners at Thane or the petitioners on one or two occasions visited the place where the couple used to stay at Bangalore.
16. The learned Senior Counsel for the complainant would contend that there is plethora of disputed questions of fact as to how the complainant has been treated by the petitioners driving her to the wall and the mental harassment meted out by the petitioners. This would come within the purview of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. This Court at this stage 21 should not quash the proceeding which is at the stage of investigation is the emphatic submission of the learned Senior Counsel.
17. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel representing the complainant is unacceptable. The complaint and the FIR (supra), even if they are read in their entirety, do not link to the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. There is no semblance of allegation that would touch upon the ingredients as needed for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. The 2nd petitioner who is the sister-in-law of the complainant is working at Thane as a teacher and staying with the 1st petitioner.
18. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners are not staying with the complainant or with the couple. The tussle is between the couple viz., the complainant and her husband. The circumstance that would emerge in the case at hand is whether, other family members of the husband could be accused of 22 offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC. This has been considered by the Apex Court in the cases of PREETI GUPTA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER – (2010) 7 SCC667 GEETA MEHROTRA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER – (2012) 10 SCC741 and RASHMI CHOPRA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS – (2019) 15 SCC357 The Apex Court in the case of PREETI GUPTA1supra) has held as follows: “28. We have very carefully considered the averments of the complaint and the statements of all the witnesses recorded at the time of the filing of the complaint. There are no specific allegations against the appellants in the complaint and none of the witnesses have alleged any role of both the appellants.
29. Admittedly, Appellant 1 is a permanent resident of Navasari, Surat, Gujarat and has been living with her husband for more than seven years. Similarly, Appellant 2 is a permanent resident of Goregaon, Maharashtra. They have never visited the place where the alleged incident had taken place. They had never lived with Respondent 2 and her husband. Their implication in the complaint is meant to harass and humiliate the husband's relatives. This seems to be the only basis to file this complaint against the appellants. Permitting the complainant to pursue 1 (2010) 7 SCC66723 this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law.
30. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this Court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society.
31. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from Section 498-A of the Penal Code which reads as under: “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, ‘cruelty’ means— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is 24 on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A 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 is also a matter of serious concern.
33. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fibre 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 498-A 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 fibre, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. … … … … 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 25 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 an amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. (Emphasis supplied) Later the Apex Court in the case of GEETA MEHROTRA2supra) has held as follows: “25. However, we deem it appropriate to add by way of caution that we may not be misunderstood so as to infer that even if there are allegations of overt act indicating the complicity of the members of the family named in the FIR in a given case, cognizance would be unjustified but what we wish to emphasise by highlighting is that, if the FIR as it stands does not disclose specific allegation against the accused more so against the co-accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific allegations which would persuade the court to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and mental torture of the complainant wife. It is the well-settled principle laid down in cases too numerous to mention, that if the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence, the court would be justified in quashing the proceedings preventing the abuse of process of law. Simultaneously, the courts are expected to adopt a cautious approach in matters 2 (2012) 10 SCC74126 of quashing, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes whether the FIR in fact discloses commission of an offence by the relatives of the principal accused or the FIR prima facie discloses a case of over implication by involving the entire family of the accused at the instance of the complainant, who is out to settle her scores arising out of the teething problem or skirmish of domestic bickering while settling down in her new matrimonial surrounding.
26. In the case at hand, when the brother and unmarried sister of the principal accused Shyamji Mehrotra approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings against them, inter alia, on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction as also on the ground that no case was made out against them under Sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC including Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, it was the legal duty of the High Court to examine whether there were prima facie material against the appellants so that they could be directed to undergo the trial, besides the question of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court seems to have overlooked all the pleas that were raised and rejected the petition on the solitary ground of territorial jurisdiction giving liberty to the appellants to approach the trial court.
27. The High Court in our considered opinion appears to have missed that assuming the trial court had territorial jurisdiction, it was still left to be decided whether it was a fit case to send the appellants for trial when the FIR failed to make out a prima facie case against them regarding the allegation of inflicting physical and mental torture to the complainant demanding dowry from the complainant. Since the High Court has failed 27 to consider all these aspects, this Court as already stated hereinbefore, could have remitted the matter to the High Court to consider whether a case was made out against the appellants to proceed against them. But as the contents of the FIR do not disclose specific allegation against the brother and sister of the complainant's husband except casual reference of their names, it would not be just to direct them to go through protracted procedure by remanding for consideration of the matter all over again by the High Court and make the unmarried sister of the main accused and his elder brother to suffer the ordeal of a criminal case pending against them specially when the FIR does not disclose ingredients of offence under Sections 498-A/323/504/506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
28. We, therefore, deem it just and legally appropriate to quash the proceedings initiated against the appellants Geeta Mehrotra and Ramji Mehrotra as the FIR does not disclose any material which could be held to be constituting any offence against these two appellants. Merely by making a general allegation that they were also involved in physical and mental torture of Respondent 2 complainant without mentioning even a single incident against them as also the fact as to how they could be motivated to demand dowry when they are only related as brother and sister of the complainant's husband, we are pleased to quash and set aside the criminal proceedings insofar as these appellants are concerned and consequently the order passed by the High Court shall stand overruled. The appeal is accordingly allowed.” (Emphasis supplied) 28 In the case of RASHMI CHOPRA3 (supra) the Apex Court has held as follows: “18. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied on various judgments of this Court in support of his submissions. In K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana [K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC452: (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 605]. , this Court laid down the following in paras 5 and 6 : (SCC p.
454) “5. A perusal of the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet discloses the fact that the appellants are not the immediate family members of the third respondent/husband. They are the maternal uncles of the third respondent. Except the bald statement that they supported the third respondent who was harassing the second respondent for dowry and that they conspired with the third respondent for taking away his child to USA, nothing else indicating their involvement in the crime was mentioned. The appellants approached the High Court when the investigation was pending. The charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet were filed after disposal [T.S.K. Ashwin Kumar v. State of Telangana, 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 432]. of the case by the High Court.
6. Criminal proceedings are not normally interdicted by us at the interlocutory stage unless there is an abuse of the process of a court. This Court, at the same time, does not hesitate to interfere to secure the ends of justice. See State of 3 (2019) 15 SCC35729 Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC335:
1992. SCC (Cri) 426]. . 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. (See Kans Raj v. State of Punjab [Kans Raj v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC207:
2000. SCC (Cri) 935]. and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P. [Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC551: (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 536]. )” … … … … 24. Coming back to the allegations in the complaint pertaining to Section 498-A and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the appellants for the offences under Section 498-A and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act are general and sweeping. No specific incident dates or details of any incident have been mentioned in the complaint. The complaint having been filed after the proceeding for divorce was initiated by Nayan Chopra in the State of Michigan, where Vanshika participated and divorce was ultimately granted. A few months after filing of the divorce petition, the complaint has been filed in the Court of CJM, Gautam Budh Nagar with the allegations as noticed above. The sequence of the events and facts and circumstances of the case leads us to conclude that the complaint under Section 498-A and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have been filed as counter-blast to divorce petition proceeding in the State of Michigan by Nayan Chopra. 30
25. There being no specific allegation regarding any one of the applicants except common general allegation against everyone i.e. “they started harassing the daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of rupees one crore” and the fact that all relatives of the husband, namely, father, mother, brother, mother's sister and husband of mother's sister have been roped in clearly indicates that the application under Section 156(3) CrPC was filed with a view to harass the applicants. Further, prior to filing of the application under Section 156(3) CrPC there was no complaint at any point of time by the girl or her father making allegation of demand of any dowry by any one of the applicants. When both Nayan Chopra and Vanshika started living separately since November 2013, had there been any dowry demand or harassment the girl would have given complaint to police or any other authority. Further, in the divorce proceedings at Michigan, USA, parties have agreed for dividing their properties including gifts given at marriage but no complaint was made in those proceedings regarding harassment by her husband or his family members. ………………………” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, which were all cases concerning arraigning of all family members of the husband without there being any cause shown or allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, has interfered and quashed the proceedings and has also directed that in such cases Courts 31 should interfere and not permit the trial to degenerate into harassment to other members of the family.
19. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent that the Court should not interfere at this stage of the proceedings as that would not be within the parameters of the powers of the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is also unacceptable in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of MANOJ MAHAVIR PRASAD KHAITAN v. RAM GOPAL PODDAR4 wherein it is held as follows:- “12. We reiterate that when the criminal court looks into the complaint, it has to do so with an open mind. True it is that that is not the stage for finding out the truth or otherwise in the allegations; but where 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 anything in the matter. Section 482 CrPC is a guarantee against injustice. The High Court is invested with the tremendous powers thereunder to pass any order in the interests of justice. Therefore, this would have been a proper case for the High Court to look into the allegations with the openness and then to decide whether to pass any order in the interests of justice. In our opinion, this was a case where the 4 (2010) 10 SCC67332 High Court ought to have used its powers under Section 482 CrPC.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court, in the aforesaid case, has held that 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 anything in the matter. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a guarantee against injustice is what the Apex Court lays emphasis on.
20. In the light of the complaint, the FIR and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases all concerning offences under Section 498A of IPC inter alia, the proceedings against the petitioners if permitted to continue would, without doubt, degenerate into harassment against the petitioners and would result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the proceedings impugned warrant appropriate interference. 33
21. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER(i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings against the petitioners in Crime Case No.54210 of 2018 arising out of Crime No.508 of 2018 on the file of the XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Mayohall, Bangalore stand quashed only insofar as they concern the petitioners. It is made clear that the observations or consideration of law on the point are restricted only to the consideration of case of the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations made or the result of this petition while proceeding with the trial against any other accused. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, stands disposed of. Sd/- JUDGE bkp CT:MJ