Deekshitha Sharmile

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna in Bengaluru allowed a petition by a woman neighbour who had been named as an accused in a wife’s complaint arising from a matrimonial dispute, and quashed the criminal proceedings against her. The complainant alleged harassment and violence by her husband and his relatives over monetary demands and claimed the neighbour instigated the husband, leading to allegations of cruelty, intentional insult, criminal intimidation and assault with common intention. The Court held that a stranger or neighbour, not related by blood or marriage to the husband, cannot be drawn into a cruelty prosecution under Section 498A on such allegations alone, while leaving the case to proceed against the remaining accused.

The petitioner, a neighbour of a married couple, approached the High Court seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against her. The marriage between the complainant and her husband had broken down, leading the complainant to file a complaint on 13 February 2021 alleging cruelty, intimidation, assault, and dowry-related demands. The complaint named several accused, including the petitioner, who was alleged to have instigated the husband’s conduct.

Also Read: 'Harsh To Send Him Behind Bars At This Stage': Supreme Court Reduces 80 Year Old Convict’s Sentence To Period Already Undergone

The police investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet invoking provisions under Sections 498A, 504, 506, and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The petitioner was arrayed as accused number five.

The petitioner contended that she had no role in the family dispute and was falsely implicated solely on the allegation of instigation. The respondent opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner was responsible for influencing the husband’s behaviour and should face trial. The High Court Government Pleader supported the complainant’s position. The matter was placed before the Court for consideration of whether proceedings against the petitioner could continue under the invoked statutory provisions.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna recorded that “The petitioner is said to be the neighbour of a couple, who get married on 17.11.2006 and their marriage appears to have gone to doldrums.” It was noted that “Respondent No.2 registers a complaint on 13.02.2021 for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with 34 of the IPC. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet. The filing of the charge sheet and issuance of summons is what has driven the present petitioner/accused No.5 to this Court in the subject petition.”

The Court stated that “The petitioner has no role to play in the family of the other accused. The petitioner is the neighbour and the only allegation against the petitioner is that she has instigated the husband to behave in a particular manner and therefore developing an axe to grind, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the case at hand.”

The Court recorded the complainant’s contention that “it is the petitioner, who is the reason for all the behaviour of the husband and therefore, the petitioner should also stand trial and come out clean in the same.” Upon examining the complaint and charge sheet, the Court observed that “The name of this petitioner is nowhere found except contending that she has instigated the husband to torture the wife otherwise the petitioner would not fit into the definition of family as is obtaining under the provision i.e., under Section 498A of the IPC.”

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramesh Kannojia v. State of Uttarakhand, noting that “neighbours of the husband's family are not relatives of the husband and cannot be implicated for offences under Section 498A of the IPC.”

The Court further stated that “In such circumstances, we modify the judgment assailed in this appeal and quash the summoning order as against the appellants so far as the allegation of commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned. The appellants cannot be implicated in that offence. So far as other offences are concerned, the prosecution of the appellants shall proceed in accordance with law.”

Finally, the Court recorded that “In that light a stranger cannot be drawn into the proceedings for offences under Section 498A of the IPC, between the husband, wife or the family members. Permitting further proceedings against this petitioner would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Also Read: Section 498A IPC Applies To Serious Cruelty, Not Marital Mismatch: Karnataka High Court Quashes Wife’s FIR Against Husband And In-Laws

Justice M. Nagaprasanna directed: “Criminal petition is allowed. The proceedings in CC.No.32092/2021 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore stands quashed qua the petitioner. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and would not become applicable to any other accused or influence further proceedings before the concerned Court, if any, against any other.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. Chandan K, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, High Court Government Pleader.

Case Title: Asha G v State of Karnataka & ANR.
Neutral Citation: NC: 2026:KHC:437
Case Number: CRL.P No. 1504 of 2023
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna