Amaraya Hiremath and Others vs State of Karnataka and Others

K.N. Phaneendra, J.—Heard the counsels for the respective parties and also High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1.

A lady by name Kumadu W/o. Muddayya lodged a complaint stating that on 01-01-2001 her marriage took place at Gayatri Temple and thereafter the husband and wife resided together happily with each other. After some time the husband started abusing and assaulting her. Inspite of that thinking better life later she stayed with him. She conceived in the year 2001 but her husband accused No. 1 got her aborted. Thereafter also he continued his attitude of abusing and assaulting her, again she conceived for second time and at that time also he took her to the hospital and got her aborted. In this manner it is alleged that her husband has been ill-treating and harassing her. In the year 2013 she came to know that her husband has taken second wife. In this context, it is alleged that she went to the house of her husband at Shahapur in order to question her husband as to why he has done like that. It is further alleged that at that time her husband assaulted her and thrown her from the house and she was on the road. On 11-11-2013 at about 8.00 p.m., the complainant and her sister Kavita, father Chandrashekhar were at Raichur and her husband again came back to Raichur and abused her and assaulted the sister and father of the complainant and threatened them with dire consequences. By looking to the above said complaint only passing remarks have been made on the petitioners by stating that when she had been to Shahapur, her father in law and mother in law (petitioners herein) also assaulted her, except this casual remark or stray sentence no foundation is there to implicate the petitioners herein. Even the said allegation is very vague it does not disclose in what manner they assaulted this lady and in which place they actually assaulted, on which part of the body they assaulted etc., because admittedly as per the complaint averments she was thrown to the street by her husband.

It is contended by the learned counsel, that the husband and wife after the marriage were residing at Raichur and the parents of accused No. 1 have been residing at Shahapur. After the marriage they never use to go to Raichur or the said lady never came to Shahapur. Looking to the above said circumstances, the allegations made in the complaint are not so sufficient to proceed against the accused. Under such circumstances in fact the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India has held the first information deserves to be quashed.

Further added to that, "the High Courts can exercise unfettered powers U/Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. under certain specific circumstances, where on complete meaningful reading of the first information report, if it does not disclose any offence being committed by the accused persons under any penal of law for the time being in force. It is not only that the allegation should constitute an offence, but the allegations if they are properly understood they should not only constitute an offence but with all reasonableness the Court should be in a position to say that those offences requires to be investigated by the police. If the allegations are so vague and it falls short of constitution of complete offence under any penal of law, for the time being in force. Under such circumstances the Court can quash the proceeding.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in a decision reported in Chandralekha and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, , has categorically held that the FIR lodged against the husband and in laws alleging the offences U/Sec. 498-A, and 406 of Indian Penal Code, allegations against appellants in laws are extremely general in nature, no specific role attributed to them. Respondent after marriage resided with her husband, not with the appellants. Proceedings against in laws is an abuse of process of law, F.I.R. was quashed.

In another decision reported in Neelu Chopra and Another Vs. Bharti, , Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that:

"the allegations made are vague as it did not show which accused has committed what offence and exact role being played by the appellants. Under such circumstances the first information report deserves to be quashed". Applying the above said guidelines, in this case absolutely there is no reference of any allegations against the petitioners which fall U/Sec. 498-A, 504, or 506 R/w Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code. The allegations made against the first accused are that in furtherance of his ill-treatment and harassment, he has assaulted her wife, but no such allegations are there against the petitioners. The basis for abusing words or assault, was due to the ill-treatment and harassment by the husband. There is no such allegations so far as these petitioners are concerned. Under the above said circumstances, no prudent man can come to the conclusion with all certainty that the petitioners have committed such offence. Hence the further proceedings in Crime No. 157/2013 registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/w Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code deserves to be quashed, otherwise it would definitely amounts to abuse of process of law.

With these observations I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed.

Consequently all further proceedings in Crime No. 157/2013 for the offences punishable U/Sec. 498-A, 323, 324, 504 and 506 R/w Sec. 34 of Indian Penal Code, so far it relates to the petitioners are concerned is hereby quashed.