Bengaluru: A paramour cannot be arrayed as an accused in criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC, as the provision is intended to address disputes arising within the family, the high court observed.Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while quashing a criminal case registered against a Mysuru woman who was arraigned as accused no. 5.
The complainant, a resident of Periyapatna taluk in Mysuru district, registered an FIR against her husband and family members at the women’s police station, Mysuru, last year. Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act-1961 were invoked.The petitioner argued that she could not be drawn into the web of proceedings under Section 498A of IPC and any other offences.On the other hand, the complainant insisted that other offences such as assault and criminal intimidation were involved, and added that the offence under Section 498A was entertainable against a paramour who was instrumental in stoking disturbance in her family.Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the narration against the petitioner was that the complainant’s husband had a relationship with her, and that it continued even after marriage. The husband and in-laws demanded dowry even after marriage, and the husband, for the sake of the petitioner, allegedly abused the complainant physically and mentally.“If the complaint and the chargesheet are read in tandem, what unmistakably emerges is that the petitioner cannot be drawn into the web of crime, she being the alleged paramour and not a member of the family. It is a settled principle of law that a total stranger, a neighbour, or a paramour cannot be drawn into the web of crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC in particular,” the judge added. He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Dechamma IM vs State of Karnataka, wherein the court held that a woman with whom a man had romantic relations outside of marriage would not be a “relative of the husband” under Section 498A of IPC.The judge also pointed out that other offences such as assault and criminal intimidation were not made out against the petitioner while allowing the petition.
