The Karnataka High Court has issued a directive to the state police to meticulously track and scrutinize future complaints filed by a woman who has lodged nine separate accusations over the past decade. The court’s decision comes in response to multiple allegations made by the woman, involving various charges such as sexual harassment, criminal intimidation, and cruelty by husband or relative, under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Presided by Justice M Nagaprasanna, the court ordered that before registering any new complaints from her, a preliminary inquiry must be conducted to curb the pattern of filing potentially unfounded cases. This measure is intended to prevent the misuse of legal provisions to harass innocent men. “This is to stop the indiscriminate registration of crimes against innocent men. We have seen ten such cases, and this is to prevent the eleventh,” noted the judge.
The ruling was made while adjudicating a petition filed by the woman’s husband and in-laws, who sought to quash the charges she had brought against them. These included accusations under multiple sections of the IPC, marking the tenth complaint she had filed in the last ten years. Senior Advocate Murthy D Naik, representing the petitioners, presented evidence of the woman’s history of complaints, which were substantiated by the prosecution.
The court’s review of the nine previous cases revealed that several men had been wrongfully accused and subsequently acquitted due to either insufficient evidence or lack of cooperation from the complainant. It was noted that the woman’s pattern of allegations appeared to target men indiscriminately, described by the judge as a “honey trap.”
In the most recent case, the complainant had accused her husband and his family members, including a 75-year-old woman who had reportedly never met her, of abuse. These incidents were alleged to have occurred between August 28 and September 22, 2022. Upon examination, the court found the allegations to be without merit, emphasizing that continuing the case would only validate the complainant’s questionable behavior.
