In a significant ruling on the scope of cruelty and dowry-related offences, the High Court of Karnataka has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman who was arrayed as an accused only because she lived next door to the matrimonial home. The court held that dragging a neighbour into a marital dispute under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was legally unsustainable and amounted to abuse of the process of law
The order was passed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna while deciding a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Background of the Case
The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between a husband and wife married in November 2006. Over the years, their relationship deteriorated, eventually leading the wife to lodge a police complaint in February 2021 at Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station, Bengaluru.
Based on the complaint, the police registered a case alleging cruelty, abuse, criminal intimidation, and physical assault under Sections 498A, 504, 506, and 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the trial court issued summons to multiple accused - including the present petitioner, who was shown as Accused No. 5.
The petitioner, a 35-year-old woman, approached the High Court contending that she was merely a neighbour and had no family or marital relationship with the complainant or her husband.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioner argued that there were no specific allegations showing her direct involvement in acts of cruelty or dowry demand. Her name, it was submitted, had been included only on the allegation that she “instigated” the husband.
Read also:- Supreme Court Restores ₹14.66 Cr Arbitration Award, Curbs High Court Interference in Dredging Dispute
Opposing the plea, the State and the complainant’s side contended that the petitioner played a role in provoking the husband’s conduct and therefore should face trial along with the other accused.
Court’s Observations
After examining the complaint and the charge sheet, the High Court noted that the petitioner’s role did not fit within the legal definition of “relative” under Section 498A IPC. The court observed that except for a vague allegation of instigation, there was nothing to show that the neighbour had any legally recognizable role in the matrimonial relationship.
“The name of this petitioner is nowhere found except a contention that she has instigated the husband,” the court observed, adding that such an allegation alone cannot bring a stranger within the ambit of Section 498A.
The court placed strong reliance on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Kannojiya v. State of Uttarakhand, where the apex court clearly held that neighbours or strangers cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A as they are not relatives of the husband.
Read also:- Supreme Court Revives Stalled Land Deal, Orders Sale of 1/11th Share in Kerala School Property Dispute
Referring to this precedent, the bench noted,
“A stranger or neighbour cannot be drawn into proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC between the husband, wife, or family members.”
Decision
Concluding that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner would lead to miscarriage of justice, the High Court allowed the criminal petition.
The court quashed the proceedings in CC No. 32092 of 2021 only insofar as they related to the petitioner, while clarifying that the observations made in the order would not affect the case against the remaining accused.
With this, the court reaffirmed that criminal law meant to protect married women from cruelty cannot be stretched to rope in unrelated third parties without clear and specific allegations.
Case Title: Asha G v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 1504 of 2023
