Family Members Calling Wife For Conciliation Meeting After She Had Feud With Husband Not Mental Harassment: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered by a woman against her brother-in-law and others alleging them of causing mental harassment to her when they after she had a feud with her husband called her to the matrimonial home for conciliation.

Single judge Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sudha Bai and others and quashed the proceedings initiated against them under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

The court said “The allegations may have to be answered by accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, (Husband and In-laws of complainant) but, I do not find any ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Act.”

The petitioner seeking quashing of the offences had argued that the petitioners' role in the alleged episode of crime is only when the petitioners interfere to solve or resolve the dispute between the husband and the wife by calling them for conciliation.

“Calling them for conciliation is termed to be a crime against them. if further investigation in the case at hand is permitted to continue, it would become an abuse of the process of the law and run foul of a plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court,” it was said.

The complainant countered this by submitting that acts of the petitioners - accused Nos.4, 5 and 6 would clearly fit in the phrase 'mental harassment' caused to the wife, as these were the petitioners who called for conciliation. But, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3, who live in the matrimonial house did not open the door for the wife for talks of conciliation and the wife was made to call the police and face humiliation in front of the family members of the wife.

The court on going through the averments made in the complaint against the petitioners noted that the petitioners being other members of the family is a matter of record. The role is that they called for conciliation and did not permit conciliation to happen between the husband and the wife and have made certain allegations against the wife.

It then said, “Barring this, there is no other allegation that would touch upon the ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC particularly against accused Nos.4, 5 and 6, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.”

It then held, “The petitioners are other members of the family. Permitting investigation even in the case at hand against these petitioners would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others vs. State of Bihar and others.”

Allowing the petition the court said “If further investigation is permitted to be continued as observed hereinabove, it would run foul of the law so laid down, as the petitioners being accused Nos.4, 5 and 6, the brother-in-law and brother-in-law's wife or the mother-in-law's sister, cannot be hauled into these proceedings.”

Appearance: Advocate Subramanya H.V for Petitioners.

HCGP Rashmi Patil for R1.

Advocate H.S. Dhanaraj for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 499

Case Title: Sudha Bai & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7090 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order