On 23rd, October,2020, Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, in Smt.Meena K Poojary versus State of Karnataka observed in a petition filed by the family members of the accused/husband that,
HIGH COURT OBSERVED :- When the contents of the FIR and complaint are perused, it is apparent that there are no specific allegations that these family members have directly caused harassment to the wife/complainant to get dowry and gold ornaments. Almost all allegations are against the accused No.1/husband of the complainant/wife. Thus, mere casual reference of the names of the family members in a matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them.
NO SINGLE INCIDENT REPORTED AGAINST FAMILY MEMBERS
Court said, the allegations in this case are mainly against accused No.1. These family members/petitioners are only involved by making general allegations without mentioning even a single incident against them. There are no specific dates on which these family members/petitioners had personally caused harassment to the wife/complainant.
FAMILY MEMBERS RESIDING IN AUSTRALIA
It was observed by the Hon’ble Court, that the family members are residing in Australia. Thus, the involvement of all these family members in the whole incident is a casual inclusion of their names. Hence, it would be total abuse of process of law if the proceedings are allowed to be continued as against these family members/petitioners.
Hon’ble High Court took the reference of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 741.
FIR QUASHED BY HIGH COURT, PETITION ALLOWED
High Court was of the view that the criminal proceedings shall have to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers for the family members. Accordingly, the Petition was allowed.
The proceedings in C.C.No.1075/2014 on the file of Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Udupi, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 384, 498A, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as against the family members/petitioners was quashed.
The proceedings continued against accused No.1/husband.
Read, Reviewed & Edited by
#lawyer of high court, #family court lawyer, #family law, #Quashing, #Delhihighcourt