A paramour cannot be charged under Section 498A IPC as she does not qualify as a relative, and there was no prima facie case for the other offences either.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this court seeking the following reliefs:

i. Quash the proceedings in CC.No.8026/2024 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore of Byadrayahalli Police for the offence punishable under Section 498A , 323, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC , 3 and 4 of DP Act.

ii. Grant such other relief’s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Petitioner-Accused No.4 is at the doors of this court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.8026/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 3 23 , 498A, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ,1961.

3. Heard Smt. Rajeshwari M, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, Learned HCGP for R-1 and Sri Krishnamoorthi L, learned counsel for R-2.

4. Facts in brief of the case are as follows: The petitioner is Accused No.4. The 2^nd respondent is the complainant, wife of one Uma Maheshwar-Accused No.1, who is not before this court. The marriage between Accused No.1 and the complainant is said to have turned sour. On the relationship turning sour, it transpires that the wife has registered a complaint against several members of the family and the present petitioner which becomes a crime in Crime No.97/2024 for the afore-quoted offences. Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet drawing the petitioner also into the web of proceedings as Accused No.4. The registration of the proceedings, the filing of the charge sheet has driven the petitioner-Accused No.4 to this court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Accused No.4 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 are clearly met against the petitioner-accused No.4 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 facts.

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

9. The relationship between the parties are as afore- narrated. The accused no. 4, the present petitioner, is admittedly a stranger who is said to be a paramour of the Accused No.1. The complaint is registered by the complainant, which triggers the registration of the crime. The complaint so registered reads as follows:

10. In the entire complaint, the narration against the petitioner is that, the complainants parents shifted the complainant and the accused No.1 – husband, to a house owned by the petitioner in order to bring their children closer to their school. The accused No.1 - husband develops an illicit relationship with the present petitioner. When the complainant informs her mother-in-law/accused No.2 about the said illicit affair, she is abused by her mother-in-law/accused No.2, leading to the complaint being filed. Upon registration of the crime the petitioner comes to be arraigned as accused No.4. The police after investigation file the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in co