The Karnataka High Court instructed the Director General of Police (DGP) to notify law enforcement about a woman who has filed 10 separate criminal cases against different men. The court also directed that no further complaints should be registered on her behalf without conducting a preliminary inquiry.
Bangalore: The Karnataka High Court instructed the State’s Director General of Police (DGP) and Inspector General of Police to alert all police stations about a woman who filed ten criminal cases against different men over the past decade.
Justice M Nagaprasanna ordered the DGP to share the woman’s identity and past legal record with police stations across Karnataka to prevent further misuse of the legal system.
The court stated,
“The details of the woman complainant should be available in the police stations’ database, allowing them to exercise caution if she attempts to register a complaint against another man,”
It further directed,
“No police station shall register her complaint without conducting a preliminary inquiry. This is aimed at curbing, if not stopping, the repeated registration of crimes against multiple men. Ten cases have already been seen, and this is to prevent an eleventh.”
The Karnataka High Court issued these directions while quashing a case filed by the woman under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the last hearing, the Court observed that the woman appeared to be a serial litigant, having filed ten criminal cases against ten different men between 2011 and 2022.
The first case filed in 2011, and four years later, she lodged a complaint against a man named Hanumesha for criminal intimidation. That same year, she accused another man, Santosh, of rape based on a breach of promise to marry. This pattern continued over the years, with the woman filing five cases of rape, two of cruelty, and three for molestation and criminal intimidation against different men.
After reviewing the nine other complaints, the Court identified a clear pattern.
The court observed,
“One common thread running through all acquittal orders is the non-appearance of the complainant despite repeated notices, The complainant has filed cases without any reason against several men and their families, leading to their involvement in legal proceedings, even in cases of serious charges like Section 376 of the IPC. The intention seems clear she intended to harass those individuals who had no real connection to her. More than ten men have fallen victim to her tactics, resembling a honey trap scenario.”
In the current case, the woman again failed to appear or be represented by her counsel.
Read Also: Judge in Honey Trap | Accused Woman Demands Rs. 50 Lakh Flat
The Court concluded that her complaints were primarily aimed at harassing the accused, leading to the misuse of police and judicial resources.
Senior Advocate Murthy D Naik and Advocate Vikram Ramalingam R represented the petitioner, while Additional Special Public Prosecutor Jagadeesha BN appeared for the State.
This directive highlights the importance of safeguarding the legal process from exploitation, ensuring that genuine victims receive justice while preventing frivolous and malicious complaints from burdening the system.