Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Based on “Glorified Trivialities”
By Pierre Herubel
In a recent ruling, the Karnataka High Court has stated that criminal proceedings against a man and his family members cannot be allowed based on insignificant conflicts between husband and wife. The court dismissed a case for offences under Sections 498A, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which accuse the husband or relative of subjecting the woman to cruelty, intentional insult, and criminal intimidation, respectively.
The decision was made by Justice M Nagaprasanna, who emphasized the need for caution when invoking Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC in similar cases. The court expressed concern over the trend of complainants involving all family members and even the husband in trivial grievances without realizing the serious consequences of criminal proceedings.
The case heard by the court involved a petition filed by a man under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The complaint was lodged by his wife, alleging that she had asked for money to perform a religious ceremony, which the husband refused, leading to abuse. The complaint was filed against all family members, but the police only charged the husband under the mentioned sections of the IPC.
After reviewing the arguments, the court found no evidence of the alleged offences in the complaint or the charge sheet. It highlighted that the disagreements between the husband and wife, although frequent, did not amount to the ingredients required for offences under Section 498A. The court described the complaint as vague and criticized the charge sheet for filing charges without clear reasons, except against the husband.
The court warned that allowing criminal proceedings over such trivial matters would encourage baseless allegations in every case. It cited several judgments from the Supreme Court emphasizing the need to dismiss frivolous cases based on far-fetched and unclear allegations.
The bench also expressed concern about the role of Investigating Officers, stating that it has become a habit to add Sections 504 and 506 to every offence, even though they may not be relevant. The court called for scrutiny of these offences to ensure they are applicable before including them in a case.
Based on the facts presented, the court concluded that the dispute in this case was solely between the husband and wife and did not disrupt public peace or warrant criminal charges under Sections 504 and 506. The bench advised Investigating Officers to exercise caution when invoking these sections since they carry a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment.
The court ultimately quashed the entire proceedings, stating that allowing the process to continue against the petitioner would be an abuse of the law and result in injustice.
In conclusion, the Karnataka High Court’s ruling emphasizes the importance of carefully considering the merits of a case before initiating criminal proceedings, particularly in instances where grievances between spouses are blown out of proportion. This decision serves as a reminder that justice must be pursued without compromising fairness and accuracy in legal proceedings.
I have over 10 years of experience in the cryptocurrency industry and I have been on the list of the top authors on LinkedIn for the past 5 years. I have a wealth of knowledge to share with my readers, and my goal is to help them navigate the ever-changing world of cryptocurrencies.
