IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty – A Girl friend or even a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage could not be construed to be a relative – For bringing a case under Section 498A of IPC, material placed on record should show that ill-treatment was meted out by husband or a relative, which is connected with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Though Respondent No.2 has been duly served with notice, she has chosen not to appear.

3. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, thereby dismissing the criminal petition filed by the present appellant for quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 339 of 2019 on the file of Court of Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete, Chamarajnagar, which has registered Gundlupete P.S. Cr. No. 172 of 2019 as against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against the appellant.

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal by way of special leave are as under:

4.1 On 19th April 2019, an FIR came to be lodged by respondent No.2 against her husband, namely, Adishetty, and Avinash Shetty (brother of her husband), Nataraju (paternal uncle of accused No.1), Prakash (son-in-law of the paternal uncle of accused No.1) and the appellant herein.

4.2 As per the said FIR, respondent No.2/complainant got married to one Adishetty on 6th November 2017. It is alleged that at the time of marriage a sum or Rs.3 Lakhs, 25 grams of gold ornaments and other articles were given in dowry. It is stated by her that she lived happily for six months in her matrimonial house at Gundlapete. It is further alleged that the husband of respondent No.2, namely, Adishetty and accused Nso.3 and 4 have colluded with each other and have harassed respondent No.2 physically as well as mentally.

4.3 Insofar as the allegation against the appellant herein is concerned, it is alleged that prior to the marriage of respondent No.2 with Adishetty, the present appellant was in a relationship with the said Adishetty which has continued even after marriage. It is further alleged that when the same was questioned, respondent No.2 was assaulted mentally and physically. It is also alleged that the appellant herein had also scolded respondent No.2/complainant in a filthy language through phone. After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against five accused persons on 1st August 2019.

4.4 After filing of the charge-sheet, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) praying for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.339 of 2019. However, the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order rejected the said petition. Hence this appeal by way of special leave.

5. We have heard Smt. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri D.L. Chidananda, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State.

6. Smt. Upadhyaya submits that even if the allegations in the FIR or in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value, no case under Section 498A of IPC is made out against the appellant herein. She further submits that the allegations are false and fabricated as the appellant is residing 200 kms., away with her husband. Relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 757 : 2009 INSC 740 Ms. Upadhyaya submits that the appellant cannot be construed to be a relative within the meaning of the relatives of the husband under the purview of Section 498A of IPC. She, therefore, submits that the proceedings deserve to be quashed.

7. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 and accused No.1 have amicably settled the matter as amongst them and a decree of divorce by mutual consent has also been passed dissolving the marriage between respondent No.2 and accused No.1.

8. This Court, in the case of U. Suvetha (supra), had an occasion to consider a question as to whether the girlfriend or a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage would be a “relative of the husband” for the purposes of prosecution under Section 4