Meena R Poojary and others vs State of Karnataka and another. Criminal Petition 4993/2015 decided on 23 October 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/346168/1/CRLP4995-15-23-10-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: 7. …It is necessary to consider whether the allegations made in the private complaint attract the offence under Section 498A and other offences alleged against them. In a decision reported in 2000(3) SCC 693 in the case of G.V.Rao vs. L.H.V Prasad and others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.12 has held as under:
“12. There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times. The marriage is a sacred ceremony, the 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 commission of 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 other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their 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.”
10. When the contents of the FIR and complaint are perused, it is apparent that there are no specific allegations that these petitioners have directly caused harassment to the complainant to get dowry and gold ornaments….Thus, overlooking the fact borne out of experience that there is a tendency of involve the entire family members of the household in the domestic quarrel taking place in the matrimonial dispute as observed in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741.
12. In a decision reported in AIR 2003 SC 1386 in the case of B.S.Joshi and others vs. State of Haryana and another, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph No.14 as under:
“14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498A in the Indian Penal Code was to prevent the torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hyper- technical view would be counter productive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XXA of Indian Penal Code.”
Criminal proceedings are quashed.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 