BENGALURU: A paramour cannot be drawn into the web of proceedings for the offences punishable under Section 498A (cruelty by a husband or his relatives) of the IPC, which is essentially attracted for a dispute between the family members, said the Karnataka High Court.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order, quashing the proceedings initiated under Section 498A against a woman-petitioner, who is the paramour of the husband of the complainant, and other charges before a trial court in Mysuru.
“A stranger, a neighbour or a paramour cannot be drawn into the web of crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The Apex Court in the case of Dechamma IM v/s State of Karnataka, observed that a woman with whom a man has romantic relations outside of marriage would not be a “relative of the husband” under Section 498A of the IPC,” the court said.
The court stated that none of the ingredients of Sections 503 (criminal intimidation), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of the IPC are found either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. What remains is the offence under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC for which there is no wound certificate, which could indicate that the petitioner had assaulted the complainant, said the court, quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner, who is accused No.5 in the First Information Report registered based on the complaint filed by the wife of the husband with whom the petitioner has a relationship, cannot be drawn into the proceedings under Section 498A or any other offence.
The petitioner moved the HC, questioning the proceedings initiated against her under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, by the wife as she has allegedly had a relationship with her husband, who is accused No.1.
In the complaint, the narration against the petitioner was that her husband had an illicit relationship with the petitioner even before the marriage, and it continued even after the marriage with the complainant. The husband and in-laws demanded dowry even after marriage, and the husband, for the sake of the petitioner, abused the complainant physically and mentally.