Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 554 (KAR)

Suresh v. State Of Karnataka

2014-06-04

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2014
Judgment : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 - State and learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records. 2. The petitioners herein have approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings in P.C. No. 142/2013, which was later registered as C.C. No.858/2013. The private complaint was filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under. Sections 494, 109 and 114 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity). 3. The learned counsel for petitioners strenuously contended that the private complaint filed by complainant Smt. Rajeshwari does not disclose any specific allegations against the petitioner Nos.2 to 4. The omni bus allegations have been made against petitioners with regard to performing of marriage between accused Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 2 - complainant with an ill-motive of harassing the family members of petitioner No. 1 has invariably dragged all of them into the Court by filing such a complaint. The learned counsel has relied upon a decision in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhun reported in AIR (SC) - 2010 -0- 3363. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the offence alleged against petitioner No.1 under Section 494 of I.P.O. is altogether different from the allegations made against the remaining petitioners. The allegations made against other petitioners are that they have abetted, co-operated and participated in the performance of second marriage of petitioner No.1 with accused No.2. The overt acts of petitioners have been categorically stated in the complaint at para 9. At the time of filing the complaint, complainant has also filed photographs, particularly video of the second marriage. The trial Court has to appreciate all the materials to arrive at a conclusion about the active participation of petitioners in the second marriage and then only this Court cannot come to any conclusion with regard to overt acts of the petitioners at this stage. Therefore, he contends that, at the threshold, this Court cannot interfere with the order passed by trial Court, which is a well reasoned one. 5. On the basis of the above rival contentions, let me see the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paras 14 and 15 of the said judgment as follows- 14. 5. On the basis of the above rival contentions, let me see the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paras 14 and 15 of the said judgment as follows- 14. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under Section 498-A of I.P.O. 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 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 fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 15. 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 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." 6. On perusal of the above said decision it is clear that if the Court is of the opinion that the complainant has unnecessarily dragged the relatives of her husband into the Court with an intention to harass them then under such circumstances in order to see that the parties could make efforts for amicable settlement, the Court has to meticulously look into the averments of complaint. Bearing in mind the above said guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has to apply its mind so far as the complaint averments are concerned. 7. As rightly contended by learned counsel paragraphs 1 to 8 in the private complaint refer to some previous ill- treatment and harassment meted out by petitioners herein to the complainant. In para 9 it is specifically stated that on 09.12.2012 second marriage of accused Nos. 1 and 2 was performed and the marriage invitation cards were printed earlier and on that day some ceremonies have been conducted in order to perform the marriage. In the complaint it has been clearly stated that accused Nos. 2 to 8 (including the petitioners herein) knowing fully well about the subsistence of marriage between accused No.1 and complainant have proceeded to conduct the second marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.2. In the complaint it has been clearly stated that accused Nos. 2 to 8 (including the petitioners herein) knowing fully well about the subsistence of marriage between accused No.1 and complainant have proceeded to conduct the second marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.2. Looking to the above said factual aspects and orders passed by learned Magistrate, it is clear that the learned Magistrate has considered the complaint averments and has opined that the entire evidence need not be gone into in order to implicate the accused persons at the stage of taking cognizance. Therefore, in my opinion, the order passed by learned Magistrate seems to be a well reasoned order and does not deserve to be set aside. In view of the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that certain allegations have been made against these petitioners. Further added to that, photos and videos have also been produced before the Court aid only after recording the evidence the Court has to come to a conclusion that these petitioners particularly petitioner Nos.2 to 5 have actually participated in the marriage and they have any specific role in the performance of second marriage. 8. Moreover, this is a private complaint filed by complainant. Under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.' for brevity), the complainant has to lead evidence prior to framing of charges. At that time also the petitioners would get sufficient opportunity to establish that they are entitle to be discharged. Under the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that this is not a stage whether this Court would exercise its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in order to quash the entire criminal prosecution. Hence, petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.