[S.498A IPC] Woman Alleged Of Having Illicit Relationship With Complainant's Husband Can't Be Charged With Cruelty, Adultery No Longer An Offense: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case of cruelty under Section 498A IPC against a woman (accused no 9) who was alleged to be in an illicit relationship with the husband of the complainant.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the plea filed by the woman held: “The allegation against accused No.9 is nothing but adultery. The allegation also reveals that she was abating accused No.1 for committing the offence under Section 498A of IPC. Accused No.9 is not a family member or in-laws in order to implicate under Section 498A of IPC. Therefore, proceeding against accused No.9 cannot be sustainable for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC or any other offence. The Supreme Court in the case of JOSEPH SHINE Vs. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2019), has struck down the provision of Section 497 of IPC as violative of Articles 14, 15(1) and 21 of the Constitution of India. It has held adultery is not an offence punishable under the IPC and it may be used for civil cases seeking remedy in the matrimonial cases."

The woman was accused by the complainant under sections 498A and 109 or 114 of the Indian Penal Code, along with other family members of the husband.

It was alleged that the husband contacted the accused in the year 2016, through a WhatsApp group, where he allegedly shared pornographic videos within the WhatsApp group especially with accused No.9.

The wife submitted that when she questioned him about the same, he 'harassed her.'

It was further submitted that the husband frequently visited India from the UK to meet accused No.9, who was a doctor, under the guise of medical treatment. Further, it was submitted that the husband started harassing the complainant due to an extramarital relationship between himself and accused No.9.

It was further alleged that accused No.9 conspired with accused Nos.2 to 8 and cooperated with the husband to threaten the complainant.  

The woman/accused no 9 approached the court seeking to quash the case and argued that she could not be brought under the provisions of Section 498A of IPC as she was not related to the husband, was his childhood friend, and their chats on WhatsApp could not itself be a ground to implicate her in the offences.

The respondent in-laws and other relatives of the husband argued that most of the allegations were against accused No.1/husband from when they stayed in England, Mysuru and Bangalore, whereas accused Nos.2 to 8 were staying at Kurukshetra in Haryana State.

Therefore it was submitted that there was no material to frame charges against the accused Nos.2 to 8, and the proceedings against them were an abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed.

Considering the case of the woman/accused no 9 alleged to be in an illicit relationship with the husband, the court quashed the case against her and stated that “On careful reading of the allegation made by the complainant against accused No.9, it is nothing but accused No.1 and accused No.9 having illicit intimacy between them. Though she has stated that they are in a compromise position, no proper allegation is made in the complaint. Since the quarrel is between accused No.1 and the complainant, it is purely in respect of the complainant's agitation against accused No.1, who is having affairs with accused No.9. Therefore, I am of the view that the arguments addressed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not sustainable under the law. “

Further, on going through the records the Court noted that accused No.1 and respondent No.2 never stayed in the house of in-laws, accused No.2 at Kurukshetra. It was observed that they only visited for some time and that itself, would not be a ground to implicate the accused No.2 or his second wife in the case.

Following this, it also quashed the proceedings against the in-laws and other relatives of the complainant. It noted:

“Explanation to Section 498A of IPC, does not make out any offence as against accused Nos.2 to 8. If at all, the complainant is trying to commit suicide by taking sleeping tablets, it is because of the quarrel between accused No.1 and herself. Therefore, accused No.1 requires to face the trial. The petitioners have not at all stayed together with accused No.1 and complainant during their marital life. On perusal of the entire record, absolutely, there is no material against accused Nos.2 to 8 for proceeding with the trial.”

Accordingly it allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings against the accused.

Appearance: Advocate Sudharshan L for Petitioners.

HCGP Venkat Satyanarayana for R1.

Advocate B Venkata Rao for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

Case Title: ABC AND State By Mysuru Women Police Station & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3051 OF 2023 CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2579 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order