A paramour cannot be charged under Section 498A IPC; other charges require clear evidence of intent and context.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this court seeking the following relief:

i. To quash the charge sheet in CC.No.25/2025 arising from Crime No.13/2024 registered at Mysuru City Women Police Station, pending before the Court of the VII Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Mysuru for offenses punishable under Sections 498A , 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC as well as Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , in the interest of justice.

2. Petitioner-Accused No.5 is at the doors of this court calling in question registration of the crime for proceedings in CC.No.25/2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A , 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 , 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act , 1961.

3. Heard Sri. Sudarshan L., learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP for the Respondent No.1 and Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

4. Facts in brief of the case are as follows:

The petitioner is Accused No.5. The 2^nd respondent is the complainant and wife of one Raghul Selvam-Accused No.1, who is not before this court. The marriage between Accused No.1 and the complainant turns sour. On the relationship turning sour, it transpires that the wife registers a complaint against several members of the family and the present petitioner which becomes a crime in Crime No.13/2024 for the afore-quoted offences. Police after investigation file the charge sheet drawing the petitioner also, into the web of proceedings as accused No.5. The registration of the proceedings and filing of the charge sheet has driven the petitioner-Accused No.5 to this court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Accused No.5 is allegedly said to be a paramour, who cannot be drawn into the web of proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC and any other offence.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that though Section 498A of the IPC cannot be filed against a paramour or even the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act , the other offences under Sections 323 , 504 and 506 of the are clearly met against the petitioner, accused No.5 and therefore would seek dismissal of the petition in so far as those offences in the least, but would however, contend that the offence under is entertainable against a paramour who has been instrumental for the disturbance in the family of the accused No.1 and the complainant.

7. The Learned HCGP would toe the lines of the counsel appearing for the complainant and has narrated the relationship between the parties. The accused no.5, the present petitioner is admittedly a stranger who is said to be a paramour of the accused No.1 - husband. The complaint is then registered by the complainant, which triggers the registration of the crime.

The complaint so registered reads as follows:

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. In the entire complaint, the narration against the petitioner is that that husband of the complainant’s husband- accused No.1 had illicit relationship with the petitioner even before the marriage and it continued even after the marriage with the complainant. Tthe husband and in-laws demanded for dowry even after marriage and the husband for the sake of the petitioner abused the complainant physically and mentally. The police after investigation filed the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column number 17 of the charge sheet reads as follows:

10. If the complaint and the charge sheet are read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is that the peti