Sarfuddin Meharaj & Others vs State Of Karnataka & Others

M. Nagaprasanna, J

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 482/2022:

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.508 of 2020 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri arising out of Crime No.6 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 448, 504, 506 read with 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 (‘the Act’ for short).

Heard Sri B.Raja Subrahmanya Bhat, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri H.S.Shankar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri K.R. Rajendra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant.

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-

Before considering the case on its merits, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the parties to the lis. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. One Mr. Sarfuddin Meharaj, the 1st petitioner is the brother-law of the 2nd respondent. 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the sisters-in-law of the 2nd respondent and the 4th petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner. The marriage between the complainant and accused No.1 takes place on 7-08-2016. After about 3 years of marriage, the relationship between the 1st accused and the complainant appears to have turned sore which led to registration of the complaint against all the petitioners and accused No.1/husband. The complaint registered on 21-01-2020 alleges that members of the family of accused No.1 have indulged in torture both mental and physical on demand of dowry. The police, after recording of statement during investigation, have filed a charge sheet in the matter. On filing of the charge sheet by the Police in C.C.No. 508 of 2020, the petitioners have filed the subject petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the complaint alleges an incident of the year 2019 particularly on 9-12-2019 and later on 23-12-2019 and 15-1-2020 certain abuses on telephone took place, all for demand of dowry from the hands of the complainant. The complaint nowhere indicates any ingredients of offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. He would further submit that the 1st petitioner working in Bahrain had nothing to do with the family of the couple. Same goes with his wife-petitioner No.4 and, therefore, would seek quashment of proceedings against the petitioners.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would submit that since Police have already filed the charge sheet, it is a matter of trial in which the petitioners have to come out clean, as the complaint, the statements made and the investigation would all clearly touch upon the ingredients of offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and seeks dismissal of the petition.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.

The afore-quoted date of marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant is not in dispute. The relationship of marriage turning sore and on allegations that the petitioners have in turn tortured the complainant both physical and mental for demand of dowry, the complainant registered the crime in Crime No.6 of 2020 for offences punishable under Section 323, 498A, 504, 506 and 149 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Since the entire issue now springs from the complaint, it is germane to notice the complaint itself which reads as follows:

The allegation in the complaint at first paragraph is that after marriage the complainant entered the joint family and after some time, the members of the family and the husband started to demand dowry other than what was already given at the time of marriage. A particular instance is narrated which is dated 9-12-2019 with particular time being 11.30 a.m. and it is here that the complainant narrates that she has been physically tortured by all the petitioners and later, the next incident that is narrated is on 23-12-2019 which was of hurling abuses over phone. Same goes with another date i.e., 15-01-2020. Thus, the incident that happened on 09-12-2019 at the house of the complainant is sought to be registered by the said complaint on 21-01-2020 close to 45 days after happening of the incident. The Police while investigating the matter have recorded statements of several persons with regard to the incident that happed on 09-12-2019. The Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet and summary of the charge sheet so filed reads as follows:

A perusal at the charge sheet would clearly indicate that the 1st petitioner, brother-in-law of the complainant is an employee working in Bahrain. It is alleged that on 09-12-2019 when he came to India he had indulged in such acts. There is no specific statement except making omnibus statement with regard to the involvement of the 1st petitioner who holds a residence permit at Bahrain having secured an employment at that place. Same goes with his wife who is petitioner No.4. With regard to others, the police in the charge sheet do not indicate any offence or commission of overt acts upon the complainant except making a statement that all of them together have indulged in torturing the complainant.

The entire allegation in the complaint is against the husband/accused No.1. The allegation against accused No.1 in the complaint and the charge sheet is that he had hit the complainant, dragged her by holding her hair and also threatened that he would kill her. There is no other statement made against any other accused in the complaint or the charge sheet. The statements recorded during investigation of all the witnesses indicate demand and giving of dowry at the time of marriage and a few incidents of 09-12-2019 against her husband as is found in the charge sheet. Therefore, it is a case where the entire allegation or grievance of the complainant appears to be against the husband and nothing against other members of the family.

If the incident that has occurred on 09-12-2019 was so grave, the complainant need not have waited for 45 days to register a complaint. The complaint ought to have been registered immediately. Even otherwise, there is no explanation in the complaint as to why the complaint was not registered immediately. The other allegations on two dates are of abuses on telephone. Therefore, while finding all the allegations against the husband, there are no allegations against the petitioners in particular, who are brother-in-law and sisters-in-law and admittedly the brother-in-law and his wife petitioners 1 and 4 are residents of Bahrain who never stay with the couple and may have visited the place of the couple when they were in India.

There is no foundation laid even in the complaint or in the charge sheet for this Court to permit further proceedings to continue against the petitioners. If such proceedings are permitted to continue against other members of the family – the petitioners herein, who are all unnecessarily dragged into the proceedings, it would fall foul of the plethora of judgments of the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of PREETI GUPTA v. STATE OF JHARKHAND (2010) 7 SCC 667 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.

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 this complaint would be an abuse of the process of law.

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.

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 on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.”

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.

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.

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 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)

In the case of GEETA MEHROTRA v. STATE OF U.P. (2012) 10 SCC 741 the Apex Court holds 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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)

The Apex Court in the case of RASHMI CHOPRA v. STATE OF U.P. (2019) 15 SCC 357 holds 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 SCC 452 : (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.

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 Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 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 SCC 207 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 935] and Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P. [Kailash Chandra Agrawal v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 551 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri) 536] )” …… ……

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.

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. …”

Further, in the case of KAHKASHAN KAUSAR v. STATE OF BIHAR 2022 SCC Online SC 162 the Apex Court holds as follows:

“Issue Involved

“11. Having perused the relevant facts and contentions made by the Appellants and Respondents, in our considered opinion, the foremost issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether allegations made against the in-laws Appellants are in the nature of general omnibus allegations and therefore liable to be quashed?

Before we delve into greater detail on the nature and content of allegations made, it becomes pertinent to mention that incorporation of section 498A of IPC was aimed at preventing cruelty committed upon a woman by her husband and her in-laws, by facilitating rapid state intervention. However, it is equally true, that in recent times, matrimonial litigation in the country has also increased significantly and there is a greater disaffection and friction surrounding the institution of marriage, now, more than ever. This has resulted in an increased tendency to employ provisions such as 498A IPC as instruments to settle personal scores against the husband and his relatives.

This Court in its judgment in Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P.4, has observed:—

“14. Section 498-A was inserted in the statute with the laudable object of punishing cruelty at the hands of husband or his relatives against a wife particularly when such cruelty had potential to result in suicide or murder of a woman as mentioned in the statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act 46 of 1983. The expression ‘cruelty’ in Section 498A covers conduct which may drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury (mental or physical) or danger to life or harassment with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand. It is a matter of serious concern that large number of cases continue to be filed under already referred to some of the statistics from the Crime Records Bureau. This Court had earlier noticed the fact that most of such complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues. Many of such complaints are not bona fide. At the time of filing of the complaint, implications and consequences are not visualized. At times such complaints lead to uncalled for harassment not only to the accused but also to the complainant. Uncalled for arrest may ruin the chances of settlement.”

Previously, in the landmark judgment of this court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar5, it was also observed:—

“4. There is a phenomenal increase in matrimonial disputes in recent years. The institution of marriage is greatly revered in this country. Section 498-A IPC was introduced with avowed object to combat the menace of harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband and his relatives. The fact that Section 498-A IPC is a cognizable and non-bailable offence has lent it a dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as weapons rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the husband and his relatives arrested under this provision. In a quite number of cases, bed-ridden grandfathers and grand-mothers of the husbands, their sisters living abroad for decades are arrested.”

Further in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand6, it has also been observed:—

“32. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A 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 are also a matter of serious concern.

The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber 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 498A 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 fiber, 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.

Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations.

The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection.

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 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 amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.”

In Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP7, it was observed:—

“21. It would be relevant at this stage to take note of an apt observation of this Court recorded in the matter of G.V. Rao v. L.H.V. Prasad reported in (2000) 3 SCC 693 wherein also in a matrimonial dispute, this Court had held that the High Court should have quashed the complaint arising out of a matrimonial dispute wherein all family members had been roped into the matrimonial litigation which was quashed and set aside. Their Lordships observed therein with which we entirely agree that:

“there has been an outburst of matrimonial dispute in recent times. Marriage is a sacred ceremony, main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully. But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case. There are many reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate the disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their “young” days in chasing their cases in different courts.” The view taken by the judges in this matter was that the courts would not encourage such disputes.”

Recently, in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana8, it was also observed that:—

“6. 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.”

The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them.

Coming to the facts of this case, upon a perusal of the contents of the FIR dated 01.04.19, it is revealed that general allegations are levelled against the Appellants. The complainant alleged that ‘all accused harassed her mentally and threatened her of terminating her pregnancy’. Furthermore, no specific and distinct allegations have been made against either of the Appellants herein, i.e., none of the Appellants have been attributed any specific role in furtherance of the general allegations made against them. This simply leads to a situation wherein one fails to ascertain the role played by each accused in furtherance of the offence. The allegations are therefore general and omnibus and can at best be said to have been made out on account of small skirmishes. Insofar as husband is concerned, since he has not appealed against the order of the High court, we have not examined the veracity of allegations made against him. However, as far as the Appellants are concerned, the allegations made against them being general and omnibus, do not warrant prosecution.

Furthermore, regarding similar allegations of harassment and demand for car as dowry made in a previous FIR. Respondent No. 1 i.e., the State of Bihar, contends that the present FIR pertained to offences committed in the year 2019, after assurance was given by the husband Md. Ikram before the Ld. Principal Judge Purnea, to not harass the Respondent wife herein for dowry, and treat her properly. However, despite the assurances, all accused continued their demands and harassment. It is thereby contended that the acts constitute a fresh cause of action and therefore the FIR in question herein dated 01.04.19, is distinct and independent, and cannot be termed as a repetition of an earlier FIR dated 11.12.17.

Here it must be borne in mind that although the two FIRs may constitute two independent instances, based on separate transactions, the present complaint fails to establish specific allegations against the in-laws of the Respondent wife. Allowing prosecution in the absence of clear allegations against the in-laws Appellants would simply result in an abuse of the process of law.

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.”

(Emphasis supplied)

The aforesaid judgments were the cases where the Apex Court was considering the acts of the complainants in drawing every member of the family into the web of criminal proceedings despite there being no allegation against them. In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioners dehors any allegation in the complaint or in the charge sheet would fall foul of the law so rendered by the Apex Court. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and terminate the proceedings against the petitioners.

For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed

ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.508 of 2020 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri pertaining to Crime No.6 of 2020 of Mulki Police Station stand quashed qua the petitioners.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2533 OF 2022:

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief:

“WHEREFORE, prays this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

(1) Relax the bail condition No.2 in the order dated 5.01.2022 i.e., the “Accused shall not leave the jurisdiction of this Court without prior permission.” in C.C.No.508 of 2020 pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri.

(2) To release the seized passport of the petitioner and, permitting the petitioner to travel to Bahrain in order to join for duty for saving his employment.;

(3) And further to pass such other necessary reliefs/ orders the circumstances necessitates in the interest of justice.”

For detailed reasons rendered and order passed in the companion petition – Criminal Petition No.482 of 2022 decided today - where the present petitioner is petitioner No.1, no further orders need be passed in the case at hand, as the relief sought in this case is only consequential to the quashment of the order passed in the companion petition.

Therefore, it is for the petitioner to avail such remedy available in law, for redressal of the grievance agitated in the present petition.

Ordered accordingly.