Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
Sushma J.M., W/o Late K.M. Madhusudhan - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.683 of 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
Decided on : 18-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA K., SRI. MANJUNATHA P.V., ADVOCATE
The court ruled that a girlfriend is not a relative under IPC Section 498A, thus cannot be prosecuted for offenses related to dowry harassment.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 304B, 504, 323, 109 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Quashing of proceedings - Petitioner petitioned to quash proceedings in S.C.No.114/2024 for offences under specified IPC sections and DP Act - Petitioner was a girlfriend and not a family member or relative, thus cannot be charged under Section 498A - Court found no material for criminal culpability as per precedents. (Paras 6, 10, 12).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was charged along with three others in connection with the death of Surabhi, whose father filed a complaint alleging harassment related to dowry. Petitioner claimed no wrongdoing, citing the lack of family relationship as grounds for her discharge.
Findings of Court:
The court held that a girlfriend cannot be categorized as a relative under IPC Section 498A, thus prosecution was deemed improper. A lack of evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged dowry demands was noted.
Issues: Whether the petitioner qualifies as a relative under Section 498A and if the proceedings should continue in light of the provided evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that prosecution under Section 498A is limited to relatives, defining 'relative' strictly to blood, marriage, or adoption, thereby absolving the petitioner from charges.
Result: Petition allowed; proceedings against the petitioner quashed.
Key Points: - The court held that "relative" under IPC Section 498A means persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption (!) (!) . - A girlfriend cannot be considered a relative of the husband and therefore cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A (!) (!) . - The expression "relative of the husband" in Section 304-B IPC is limited to blood relations or relations by marriage (!) (!) . - The court quashed proceedings against the petitioner as she was not a family member or relative (!) (!) . - The principle applies equally to abetment charges under Section 498A, where the petitioner cannot be arraigned as an accused (!) (!) .
What is the definition of "relative" under IPC Section 498A?
Can a girlfriend be prosecuted for dowry harassment offences?
What is the scope of "relative of the husband" in dowry death cases?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks to quash proceedings. (Para 2) |
| 2. charges and background of the case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
ORDER :
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for the following relief:
"WHEREFORE the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings qua the petitioner in S.C.NO.114/2024 in crime No.18/2024 by Shravanabelagola police, pending on the file of IV addl district & Sessions judge at Hassan, sitting at Channarayapatna for the offence under section 498A, 304B, 504, 323 & 109 of IPC R/w section 3, 4 & 6 of DP act in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2/defacto-complainant is the father of one Surabhi, who is said to have expired on 22.02.2024. It is an undisputed fact and material on record that respondent No.2 was the father of the deceased Surabhi whose husband was one Darshan and Vasu and Sujatha were her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. On 22.02.2024, respondent No.2, father of the deceased Surabhi filed the instant complaint which is registered in FIR in crime No.18/2024 against the petitioner/accused No.1, Darshan, husband of the deceased Surabhi and Vasu and Sujatha, father and mother of Darshan as accused Nos.1 to 3 respectively for offences punishable under Sections 4 98A, 304B, 504 and 34 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. After investigation, the police authorities filed a chargesheet for offences punishable under Sections 4 98A, 304B, 504 and 34 IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 along with Section 109 IPC which is currently pending in the impugned S.C.No.114/2024 before the trial Court.
4. As stated supra, the petitioner is only alleged to be the girlfriend of accused No.1-Darshan, husband of the deceased Surabhi and is arraigned as accused No.5 only in relation to offences punishable under Section 4 98A and Section 109 IPC. A perusal of the material on record will also indicate that the petitioner/accused No.5 filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking discharge which was rejected by the Sessions Court vide impugned order which is assailed in the present petition. In this context, it is relevant to state that the petitioner not being a family member or relative of accused No.1, the husband of the deceased Surabhi, the petitioner cannot be incriminated of the offences punishable under Section 4 98A IPC as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dechamma I.M. @ Dechamma Koushik Vs. the State of Karnataka and Another in SLP (Crl.) No.3421/2022 decided on 04.12.2024, it is held as under:
"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 4 98A, 504, 109 of 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/complain
