Husband's Paramour Is Not Relative Or Family Member, Cannot Be Dragged Into Proceedings U/S 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by a woman against the paramour of her husband.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the woman and her mother who were arrayed as accused in the case registered under sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

As per the complaint, the accused No.1 and the complainant are husband and wife. Their marriage took place on 07.02.2022. It was stated that the relationship between husband - accused No.1 and the complainant floundered, and the impugned crime came to be registered against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to 8, who were all members of the family or the mother-in-law or father-in-law of the complainant.

The petitioners seeking quashing of the case were the lady with whom the husband had an alleged affair and her mother.

The petitioners argued the complaint would demonstrate that there is not even a bare reference to them petitioners which touched upon the ingredients of any of the offences alleged against the petitioners. It was argued that without any rhyme or reason, the petitioners were drawn into the web of investigation.

The complainant argued that the police after investigation had filed a charge sheet against all other accused. It was stated that the offences were grave and clearly indicated that the first petitioner was responsible for all the happenings in the life of accused No.1 or the family members. It was stated that there was no allegation that can touch upon any of the offences alleged against the second petitioner.

Findings:

The bench on going through the complaint noted that it would indicate an affair between accused No.1 and the first petitioner, and thus held that the first petitioner was indeed the paramour of the husband. 

Then it held “It is settled principle of law that a paramour of an accused cannot be dragged into proceedings under Section 498A of IPC as the said accused would not become a relative or a member of the family as is necessary under Section 498A of IPC thus, tumbles down the offence under Section 498A of IPC qua the first petitioner.”

Further, the court said, “If the other offences alleged are pitted against what is narrated in the complaint, none of the ingredients of any of the offences can be found against the first petitioner - accused No.4 as the other offences are ones under Sections 323, 324, 307, 420, 504 and 506 of IPC.”

It added that there was not any foundation in the complaint against the first petitioner and the offences against her were 'loosely laid.' Court further held that the second petitioner, the mother of the first petitioner was prima facie unnecessarily dragged into these proceedings as there were not any ingredients of the offences as alleged against her.

Allowing the petition and quashing the prosecution the court said “If further proceedings are permitted to be continued, it would become an abuse of process of law.”

Appearance: Advocate Rakshith K. S for Petitioner

Senior Advocate Tomy Sebastian, a/w Advocate Melanie Sebastian for R2.

HCGP Thejesh P for R1.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 275

Case Title: ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 88 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order