In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has underscored that general accusations of instigation or the use of abusive language by in-laws, without specific details, are insufficient grounds for criminal prosecution. The court quashed proceedings against a family from Kalaburagi, emphasizing that continuing the case would be an abuse of the legal process.
Court Halts Criminal Proceedings Against Family
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum quashed the criminal proceedings against Abeda, her husband Mohammad Runkuddin Jumna, and five other family members. The case stemmed from a complaint filed by their daughter-in-law, Tehseen Begum, at the women's police station in Kalaburagi. The court held that subjecting the petitioners to a full trial based on vague claims would force them into an unnecessary rigmarole of criminal prosecution.
Key Facts and Complainant's Own Admissions
The judgment meticulously examined the complaint filed by Tehseen Begum on July 22, 2023. Justice Magadum noted a crucial admission: the complainant explicitly stated she lived separately with her husband, Nooruddin Jumna. The court observed that all allegations concerning neglect, marital discord, and harassment were specifically directed only at Nooruddin.
"There are absolutely no individual or specific allegations against any of us," the petitioners had argued, a point the court found merit in. The judge further highlighted that a family partition had taken place, leading to a separate three-room portion being allotted, which proved the petitioners and the complainant did not share a common household.
Lack of Specifics and Root of Marital Discord
Justice Magadum pointed out a fatal flaw in the complaint: the allegations against the in-laws were unsubstantiated and lacked any particulars of date, time, place, or specific acts. The complaint repeatedly referenced the husband's prolonged stays in the Gulf region, which the court identified as the apparent primary reason for the marital discord.
The ruling establishes a clear legal principle: mere assertion of instigation or abuse without concrete instances cannot form the foundation for initiating criminal proceedings. The court's decision to exercise its inherent jurisdiction prevents what it deemed an abuse of the process of law.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling serves as a crucial check against the misuse of criminal law in matrimonial disputes. It reinforces that for a case to proceed, complaints must contain specific, actionable allegations rather than broad, unsupported claims against extended family members. The judgment protects individuals from being entangled in protracted legal battles based on vague accusations, ensuring that the process of law is not weaponized in personal disputes.
