IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2197 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SHEIK NOORUDDIN AGED 32 YEARS, S/O AMEER SAB, 2. BEBIJAN AGED 56 YEARS, W/O AMEER SAB, 3. NASEEMA AGED 30 YEARS, D/O AMEER SAB, PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NOOR MANZIL, PANDUBETTU, MALPE ROAD, UDUPI-576101.
4. SHIREEN BANU AGED 37 YEARS, W/O MOHAMMED RAFICK, R/AT NEHA MANJIL, DOOR NO.1-89, PANDUBETTU, AMBALAPADY, UDUPI-573103.
5. KUM AMMANNI AGED 63 YEARS, D/O SHEENA MOILY, R/AT NO.1-141, MUTHU KRUPA, BIMBEDADKA, POST DURGA-576117, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: S K ACHARYA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RIPPANPETE POLICE STATION, RIPPANPETE, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. SHABEENA AGED 22 YEARS, W/O SHEIK NURUDDIN, D/O JAVEED BASHA, R/AT KODUR VILLAGE, POST KODU, KEREHALLI HOBLI, HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-573444. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI: B.N.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.789/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSANAGARA.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioners are aggrieved by the submission of charge sheet against them in C.C.No.789/2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 498A r/w.34 of IPC.
2. Petitioner No.1 (A1) is the husband of the complainant/respondent No.2-wife, petitioner No.2 (A2) is the mother and petitioner No.3 (A3) is the sister and petitioners 4 and 5 (A4 and A5) are the neighbours of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 herein filed a complaint before the Rippanpete Police alleging cruelty and harassment in her matrimonial home. After service, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners.
3. Material allegations made in the charge sheet are that for about one year after marriage, respondent No.2 was looked after cordially in the matrimonial home but thereafter, A1 began to ill-treat and harass her at the instance of A2 to A5. Insofar as A1 is concerned, there are specific allegations that after the birth of the child, A1 used to subject respondent No.2 to physical and mental cruelty and that he drove respondent No.2 out of the matrimonial home. Insofar as A2 to A5 are concerned, except making bald and general allegations in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet that at their instance A1 chased respondent No.2 out of the matrimonial home, neither the complaint nor the charge sheet contains any specific instances of cruelty and harassment by A2 to A5 so as to constitute the offence under Section 498A of IPC is concerned.
4. In order to constitute an offence under the said section, cruelty meted out to the victim should be 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 or harassment of the women where such harassment is caused with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security. Such material is lacking in the instant case.
5. In this context it may be apposite to refer to the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Varala Bharath Kumar And Another – vs – State of Telangana And Another reported in (2017) 9 Supreme Court Cases 413 wherein in paragraph 8 it is observed as under :-
“We are conscious of the fact that, Section 498A was added to the Code with a view to punish the husband or any of his relatives, who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. Keeping the aforementioned object in mind, we have dealt with the matter. We do not find any allegation of subjecting the complainant to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A IPC. The records at hand could not disclose any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the complainant to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the complainant. So also, there is nothing on record to show that there was a demand of dowry by the appellants or any of their relatives, either prior to the marriage, during the marriage or after the marriage. The record also does not disclose anywhere that the husband of the complainant acted, with a view to coerce her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of any property or valuable security.”
6. In the absence of any such material constituting the ingredients of the above offence insofar as A2 to A5 are concerned, their prosecution amounts to abuse of the process of Court and is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, petition is allowed in part. The petition filed by petitioner No.1 (A1) is dismissed. Petition insofar as petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 (A2, 3, 4 and 5) is allowed. C.C.No.789/2014 pending on the file of Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosanagara, is quashed only insofar as petitioners 2 to 5 (A2 to A5) are concerned. Trial shall proceed against petitioner No.1 (A1) in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE rs