A Decade Old Saga Of Deceit; More Than 10 Men Fallen Prey To Her Antics & Tactics: Karnataka HC Quashes Cruelty Case Against Accused Filed By Woman
|The Karnataka High Court quashed a cruelty case against a man and his family members filed by a woman being alleged to have filed false cases against more than ten men.
The Court was deciding a criminal writ petition filed by the accused persons, challenging the registration of case for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna remarked, “… 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 is therefore, I consider the act of the second respondent - complainant to be “a decade old saga of deceit” not against one, but against many.”
Senior Advocate Murthy D. Naik appeared for the petitioners while Additional Special Public Prosecutor (Addl. SPP) B.N. Jagadeesha appeared for the respondents.
Factual Background -
The accused persons were the husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandmother, and brother-in-law of the complainant. It was averred in the petition that when the husband (petitioner/accused) was working with a private company during the year 2019, the wife (respondent/complainant) had contacted him in connection with business transactions/sale of coffee. Since then, as per the complainant’s claim, she dealt with agro-products such as spices and coffee and had a company.
Post three years, in 2022, the accused met the complainant for the first time in a hotel in connection with a business transaction. It was then, the relationship between the two bloomed. Thereafter, the complainant registered a complaint alleging an offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, barely after 15 days of the said meeting and blooming of the relationship. Subsequently, the complainant registered another complaint where it was alleged that the accused married her by appearing before the Sub-Registrar and she was abandoned in the intervening period. The registration of crime led to the filing of the petition by the accused before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The 2nd respondent who appears in person has been absent continuously. This Court noting her absence, on 05-03-2024 listed the matter on 21-03-2024. Again on 21-03-2024, the matter was adjourned. On 28-08-2024, this Court heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and recorded his submissions. As a last chance, the matter was adjourned to 31-08-2024. On 31-08-2024, again there was no representation of the 2nd respondent. The matter was directed to be listed on 03-09-2024. Even on 03-09-2024, there was no representation of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor were heard and all available materials on record are perused.”
The petitioner out of serendipity got to know the history of the complainant. The events in history would date back to 10 years and in these ten years, close to ten complaints emerged against different men, either terming them as husbands or accused for offence of rape on the score of promise of marriage.
The Court in view of the aforesaid 10 complaints, said, “One common stream that runs through all the orders of acquittal are non-appearance of the complainant despite repeated notices. Therefore, 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 Court added that the intention is clear and it was only to harass those persons who had nothing to do with the complainant. Swinging back to the facts of the case, the Court noted that even other members of the family are vaguely brought into the web of crime.
“… 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”, it observed.
“… facts are stubborn and therefore, un-effaceable. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to efface or obliterate the crime against the petitioners”, it also added.
Moreover, the Court said that the complaint which is purely a marital discord is blown out of proportion and permitting further investigation in such cases would become an abuse of the process of law.
“A parting observation or a direction in the case at hand would not be inapt. If the afore-quoted crimes registered by the complainant are noticed for the last one 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; they have to secure bail after long hiatus in the custody, only to get acquitted ultimately. In all the cases of acquittal that are noticed in the course of the order are on account of the complainant not cooperating with the trial. In every trial she has been continuously absent”, it emphasised.
The Court further took note of the fact that, Police is engaged in investigating into 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.
“Even before this Court, the complainant has appeared once and has not appeared on plethora of occasions. The unmistakable inference that is to be drawn in the aforenarrated facts and circumstances is, a direction to the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police to digitally circulate the details of present complainant to all the police stations to be wary of her complaints”, it said.
The Court, therefore, directed the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police to communicate to all the police stations all the details of the complainant to be available on the database, so that they would be cautious when the complainant would want to register a crime against any other man; 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”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the case against the accused persons.
Cause Title- Viveka P.K. & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:36345)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate Murthy D. Naik and Advocate Vikram Ramalingam R.
Respondents: Addl. SPP Jagadeesha B.N.