Appellant no. 1 – Mahalakshmi is the sister of accused no. 1 – Sarvan Kumar, former husband of informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Maharani T.S. and Ranjanavadhan, respectively, are cousins of accused no. 1 – Sarvan Kumar. Appellant no. 4 – Archana is the wife of appellant no. 3 – Ranjanavadhan.
xxx
Facts
Accused no. 1 – Sarvan Kumar and the informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran got married on 29.06.2015. Rekha Bhaskaran made a written complaint, pursuant to which First Information Report1 No. 92 of 2016 dated 26.11.2016, was registered at Police Station – Halasurgate Women, District – Bangalore City, Karnataka for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation, a charge sheet dated 20.07.2017 was filed.
Thereupon, the appellants, along with accused no. 1 – Sarvan Kumar, his father, accused no. 2 – Surendra Prasad, and his mother, accused no. 3 – Malathi were summoned to appear before the trial court.
The appellants had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 19733 to quash the charge sheet dated 20.07.2017. The said petition was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 21.03.2019.
Living Details Of Appellant
It is an accepted position that appellant no. 1 – Mahalakshmi, sister of accused no.1 – Sarvan Kumar, got married on 02.05.2013. After marriage, she has been residing in Canada.
Charge against the appellant
We have perused the complaint, as well as the charge sheet. In the complaint, the informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran had alleged that in February 2016, appellant no.1 – Mahalakshmi commented on her physical appearance and on 20.09.2016, Mahalakshmi had thrown the personal belongings of Rekha Bhaskaran in the dustbin. In the charge sheet, however, the only allegation that was found to be substantiated was the second allegation, that is, the appellant no. 1 – Mahalakshmi had thrown some of the personal belongings of the informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran on the ground, as they were not kept at the proper place. Further, appellant no. 1 – Mahalakshmi had cursed the informant/respondent no. 2 – Rekha Bhaskaran in foul words.
Reply argument of the appellant
It is the contention of appellant no. 1 – Mahalakshmi that the assertions made in the complaint are false and incorrect. However, it is accepted that she was living and working in Canada. Further, sometime in March 2016, she visited India to attend her friend’s wedding in Mysore and stayed there for nearly twenty days. Again, in September 2016, she had remained in India for almost 12 days when her father, accused no.2 – Surendra Prasad, was operated and hospitalized under critical care for two to three weeks.
Conclusion: Allegation against appellant is vague and general
Having considered the charge sheet filed, we are of the view that the assertions made therein are very vague and general [See – Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599; K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452; Rajesh Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 10 SCC 472; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273; Geeta Mehrotra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 10 SCC 741; and Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667]. One instance unless portentous, in the absence of any material evidence of interference and involvement in the marital life of the complainant, may not be sufficient to implicate the person as having committed cruelty under section 498A of the IPC. Given that the appellants were not residing at the marital home, and appellant no.1 was not even living in India, the absence of specific details that constitute cruelty, we would accept the present appeal.
Party
MAHALAKSHMI & ORS. ….. APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR. ….. RESPONDENTS – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 494/2023 – NOVEMBER 30, 2023 – 2023 INSC 1050
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/13940/13940_2019_3_101_48660_Judgement_30-Nov-2023.pdf
Mahalakshmi-ors-v.s-The-State-of-Karnataka
Further study on this subject
Hon’ble Supreme Court discouraged the implication of relatives of the complainant (husband) for general and omnibus allegations:
- Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant’s husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged [KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS. … APPELLANT (S) VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.… RESPONDENT(S) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 195 OF 2022 (arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 6545 OF 2020) 08TH FEBRUARY, 2022].
The offence of cruelty confirmed for the reason that the mother-in-law being a lady does not protect another lady daughter-in-law from cruelty:
It is to be noted that the appellant – mother-in-law is held to be guilty for the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Being a lady, the appellant, who was the mother-in-law, ought to have been more sensitive vis-à-vis her daughter-in-law. When an offence has been committed by a woman by 6 meting out cruelty to another woman, i.e., the daughter-in-law, it becomes a more serious offence. If a lady, i.e., the mother-in-law herein does not protect another lady, the other lady, i.e., daughter-in-law would become vulnerable. In the present case, even the husband of the victim was staying abroad. The victim was staying all alone with her in-laws. Therefore, it was the duty of the appellant, being the mother-in-law and her family to take care of her daughter-in-law, rather than harassing and/or torturing and/or meting out cruelty to her daughter-in-law regarding jewels or on other issues. Therefore, as such, no leniency is required to be shown to the appellant in this case. There must be some punishment for the reasons stated hereinabove. However, considering the fact that the incident is of the year 2006 and at present the appellant is reported to be approximately 80 years old, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as a mitigating circumstance, we propose to reduce the sentence from one year R.I. to three months R.I. with fine imposed by the Trial Court to be maintained [Meera …Appellant(s) Versus State By the Inspector of Police Thiruvotriyur Police Station Chennai …Respondent(s) – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2022 – JANUARY 11, 2022].
