Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 3227
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
VAISHNAVI T – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 7073 of 2023
A paramour cannot be charged under Section 498(A) IPC as they do not qualify as a 'relative' of the husband, and no evidence exists for charges under Section 506 IPC.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498(A) and 506 - Quashing of proceedings - The petitioner sought to quash proceedings against her for offences under IPC Sections 498(A) and 506, alleging no necessary ingredients for the latter were present - The court found that the petitioner, as a paramour, could not be considered a relative under Section 498(A) IPC, referencing U. Suvetha Vs. State of Inspector of Police and others - The court emphasized that the petitioner was not a family member of the complainant and thus not liable under the said section. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7)
(B) Legal principles - The court reiterated that a paramour cannot be charged under Section 498(A) IPC as they do not fall within the definition of 'relative' - Citing various precedents, the court established that the term 'relative' requires a status conferred by blood, marriage, or adoption. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused No.2, was alleged to be the paramour of accused No.1, Devaraju, whose wife filed a complaint leading to the charge sheet against both. The court found no evidence of threats against the petitioner under Section 506 IPC.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner for both offences, affirming that she could not be charged under Section 498(A) IPC as she was not a relative of the husband.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner could be charged under Section 498(A) IPC and if the necessary ingredients for Section 506 IPC were present.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a paramour does not qualify as a relative under Section 498(A) IPC, thus cannot be charged, and found no evidence for the charge under Section 506 IPC.
Result: The petition is hereby allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed.
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief:
"Quash the entire proceedings in CC No.22266/2022 arising out of Crime No.50/2022 registered by the Peenya Police Station pending on the file of XXXI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code , 1860."
2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 is the wife of accused No.1 - Devaraju and the petitioner - accused No.2 is alleged to be a paramour of the aforesaid Devaraju. The respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint dated 22.02.2022 pursuant to which an FIR in Crime No.50/2022 was registered as against the petitioner - accused No.2 and the aforesaid Devaraju - accused No.1.
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, the respondent No.1 - Police Authorities have registered a charge sheet, which is currently pending in C.C.No.22266/2022 before the trial Court. In this context, a perusal of the charge sheet, statement of witnesses, FIR and complaint will clearly indicate that the necessary ingredients constituting offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC are conspicuously absent insofar as the petitioner - accused no.2 is concerned. In fact, the statement of seven witnesses [CW.1 to CW.7], including respondent No.2 - CW.1 will clearly indicate that the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC has not been made out as against the petitioner - accused No.2 even if the averments made in the complaint, FIR, charge sheet and statement of witnesses are taken at their face value. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner - accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC deserve to be quashed.
5. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, the issue as to whether the paramour of a husband can be dragged into and incriminated for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC , is no longer res intera in the light of the following decisions of the Apex Court and this Court:
i. Sunita Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another - 2010 AIR SCW 6112 .
ii. Smt. Nandini Nallappan and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Crl.P.No.88/2023 decided on 12.06.2024.
iii. Smt. Harini H Vs. Smt. Kavya H @ Sangeetha and Another - AIR ONLINE 2021 KAR 1597
In U. Suvetha Vs. State of Inspector of Police and Another - (2009) 6 SCC 757 , the Apex Court has held as under:
"xxxx
18. By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a “relative”. The word “relative” brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.
19. We may notice that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rajeti Laxmi v. State of A.P. [ (2007) 1 DMC 797 (AP) ] held as under: (DMC p. 798, para 4)
“4. The entire reading of the charge-sheet and the statements of LWs 1 to 7, goes to show that it is nobody's case of the accused or the prosecution that A-6 is the relative of husband of LW 1. She is only concubine of A-1 and having illicit intimacy with him. Therefore, in the absence of any averment in the charge-sheet or any statement that she is a relative of A-1, I am of the opinion that the offence under Section 498-A IPC does not attract to A-6. Even as per the dictionary meaning ‘relative’ means a person connected by blood or marriage or ‘a species related to another by common origin’. Simply because A-6 is having illicit intimacy with A-1, it cannot be said that she is a relative of A-1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in CC No. 233 of 2004 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC , against the petitioner A-6. Insofar as the other offences are concerned, it may go on.”
20. A le
