The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman accused of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that a neighbour cannot be prosecuted under the said section as they do not fall within the definition of a “relative” of the husband.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Asha G, holding that permitting further proceedings against a stranger to the family would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Case Background
The case originated from a complaint lodged on February 13, 2021, by the second respondent, Smt. Munirathnamma. The complainant had married Accused No. 1 on November 17, 2006. According to the complaint, the marriage ran into trouble, leading to allegations of dowry harassment and cruelty.
The police investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet against the husband and his family members for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The petitioner, Asha G, was arrayed as Accused No. 5 in the charge sheet. The allegations against her were that she was a neighbour with whom the husband had developed a relationship. The complaint stated that the husband had threatened to marry the petitioner if the complainant did not bring more dowry. It was further alleged that on December 11, 2020, the petitioner, along with the husband and his relatives, abused and threatened the complainant.
Arguments
Sri. Chandan K, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is merely a neighbour and has no role to play in the family affairs of the other accused. He argued that the only allegation against the petitioner is that she “instigated the husband to behave in a particular manner.” He contended that she was arrayed as an accused because the complainant had “an axe to grind” against her.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant vehemently opposed the plea, contending that the petitioner was the root cause of the husband’s behavior. It was argued that since the petitioner allegedly joined the husband and his family in harassing the wife, she should stand trial.
Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader, supported the contentions of the complainant.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Nagaprasanna examined the charge sheet and the complaint, noting that the petitioner is described as a neighbour living next door to the husband. The Court observed that apart from the allegation of instigation, the petitioner does not fit into the definition of “family” as required under Section 498A of the IPC.
The Court relied heavily on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kannojiya & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2024). In that case, the Apex Court held that neighbours of the husband’s family are not “relatives” of the husband and cannot be implicated for offences under Section 498A of the IPC.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court noted:
“Reference to the word ‘relative’ in Section 498-A, IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage.”
Applying this principle to the present case, Justice Nagaprasanna observed:
“The name of this petitioner is nowhere found except contending that she has instigated the husband to torture the wife otherwise the petitioner would not fit into the definition of family as is obtaining under the provision i.e., under Section 498A of the IPC.”
The Court further held:
“In that light a stranger cannot be drawn into the proceedings for offences under Section 498A of the IPC, between the husband, wife or the family members. Permitting further proceedings against this petitioner would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.”
Decision
Consequently, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.32092/2021 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as it related to the petitioner, Asha G.
The Court clarified that the observations made in the order were solely for considering the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and would not influence the proceedings against the other accused.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Asha G vs. State of Karnataka and Another
- Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 1504 of 2023
- Coram: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
- Counsel for Petitioner: Sri. Chandan K
- Counsel for Respondents: Sri. K. Nageshwarappa (HCGP for R1)
