Karnataka High Court has quashed a cruelty case against a woman, ruling that she cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC. The Court clarified that a neighbour or outsider cannot be held liable for matrimonial cruelty allegations.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court dismissed a criminal case against a woman who was accused in a matrimonial cruelty matter solely because she was a neighbor of the husband, not a family member.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna granted the petition of Asha G, ruling that a neighbor or outsider cannot be held liable for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The case stemmed from a complaint filed on February 13, 2021, in which a woman alleged that after her marriage in November 2006, she faced harassment, abuse, and demands for dowry from her husband and his family.
Also Read: Dowry Death? Dying Declaration Sends Mother-In-Law To Jail For Life: District Court
The complainant accused her husband, his parents, and other relatives of demanding money and gold, as well as subjecting her to physical and verbal abuse, and issuing threats when she didn’t comply with their demands.
In addition to accusing her husband and his family members, the complainant also named the petitioner, who lived next door, alleging that she incited the husband and aided in the harassment.
Based on these claims, the police charged her with offenses under Sections 498A, 504, 506, and 323 in conjunction with Section 34 of the IPC, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, ultimately leading to a charge sheet.
Challenging the charge sheet and the summons, the petitioner approached the High Court, arguing that she had no familial ties to the complainant’s husband and that she was falsely implicated due to personal grudges. She contended that the only accusation against her was instigation, which alone did not fall within the ambit of Section 498A.
The State opposed her plea, claiming that the petitioner played an active role in provoking the husband, warranting her trial alongside the other accused.
The prosecution maintained that her actions contributed to the alleged cruelty inflicted on the complainant.
Upon reviewing the complaint and charge sheet, the court noted that the petitioner was a neighbor, not related to the husband by blood or marriage. The court observed that aside from a vague allegation of instigation, there were no specific actions attributed to her that could warrant prosecution under Section 498A.
The court cited a recent Supreme Court ruling in Ramesh Kannojiya v State of Uttarakhand, which reiterated that neighbors or strangers do not qualify as relatives for the purposes of Section 498A IPC.
Given that this legal provision is penal in nature, it requires strict interpretation and pertains only to the husband or his relatives, the court noted.
Justice Nagaprasanna concluded that allowing the proceedings to proceed against the petitioner would constitute an abuse of the judicial process and lead to a miscarriage of justice.
The court emphasized that, regardless of the severity of matrimonial disputes, third parties who fall outside the legal framework of the offense should not be implicated.
As a result, the criminal petition was granted, and the proceedings concerning the petitioner from the 2021 case were quashed.
The court clarified that its decision pertained specifically to the petitioner under Section 482 CrPC and would not impact the prosecution of the other accused, which would move forward according to the law.
Case Title: Asha G vs State of Karnataka
Read Attachment