Karnataka High Court Directs DGP To Alert Police Stations Regarding Woman Who Repeatedly Filed Unsubstantiated Cases Against Several Men
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police to communicate to all the state's police stations, the details of a woman complainant who had registered nine complaints/FIRs, against different persons alleging sexual harassment, criminal intimidation and also for offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC.A single judge bench of Justice...
The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police to communicate to all the state's police stations, the details of a woman complainant who had registered nine complaints/FIRs, against different persons alleging sexual harassment, criminal intimidation and also for offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The details of the woman complainant be available on the database of the police stations, so that they could be cautious when the complainant would want to register a crime against any other man.”
It added “The police station before whom this complainant would seek to register a crime shall not register the same without conducting any appropriate preliminary enquiry. This is to curb, if not stop wanton registration of crimes against several men. Ten have been seen, it is only to stop the eleventh.”
Background
The court passed the direction while allowing a petition filed by the husband and in-laws seeking quashing of the offences registered against them under sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code registered against them by the woman. Interestingly, this was the 10th crime registered by the complainant in the last decade.
Senior Advocate Murthy D Naik appearing for the petitioners had submitted relevant details about the previous complaints filed by the woman, which were verified to be true by the prosecution.
The court then referred to all the nine previous complaints registered by the woman.
It observed, “The complainant has registered crimes without any rhyme or reason against several men and their family members, which drew them as accused into the web of proceedings, even for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, which lead those accused to be taken into custody and bail being secured after a long period in custody. Those accused were also made to undergo the rigmarole of trial only to be acquitted for want of cooperation from the hands of the complainant.”
“The intention is clear. It was only to harass those persons who had nothing to do with the complainant, more than 10 men have fallen prey to the antics and tactics of the complainant, bordering on a honey trap character of the complainant, by way of the aforesaid modus operandi,” it added.
It added that for the last decade, the unmistakable inference would be that the complainant at every point in time is crying wolf, and has gone on, registering crimes without any semblance of substance as a result of which the accused are taken into custody and have to secure bail, only to get acquitted ultimately.
It said that the Police were engaged in investigating false claims or crimes registered by the complainant and the Criminal Courts are engaged in conducting trials in which all the accused, at every point in time, in every trial, have been acquitted.
On the merits of the present case, the court on going through the records said “The incidents happen between 28.08.2022 and 22-09-2022 for 25 days are projected to be a crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, inter alia against all the members of the family including an age old lady of 75 years who has not even seen the complainant. Even other members of the family are vaguely brought into the web of crime.”
Then it held “If this proceeding cannot become mala fide, I fail to understand which proceeding can be termed to be a mala fide action on the part of the 2nd respondent/complainant. Permitting further proceedings to continue in the case at hand, or any further investigation or to file a final report will be putting a premium on the continued illegal activities of the complainant all of which are narrated hereinabove.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 1364/2023.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
Appearance: Senior Advocate Murthy D Naik for Advocate VIKRAM RAMALINGAM R
Additional SPP Jagadeesha B N FOR R1.
Click Here To Read/Download Order