Karnataka High Court
Vaishnavi T vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7334
CRL.P No. 7073 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7073 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
VAISHNAVI T
D/O THYAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/A FLAT NO.102
1ST FLOORK JAYA SAPPHIRE
5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
MALLESHPALYA
BENGALURU-560075
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ADBHUTH J KAUSHIK.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PEENYA POLICE
Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS
signed by
VANAMALA STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
N BENGALURU-560001
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 2. DR T L VIJAYALAXMI
KARNATAKA
W/O DEVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/A NO.60, IST FLOOR, PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
BUILDING SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT
SHIVAPURA, PEENYA 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE-560058
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T.M.VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7334
CRL.P No. 7073 of 2023
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.22266/2022 ARISING OUT
OF CR.NO.50/2022 REGISTERED BY THE PEENYA POLICE STATION
PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXI ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 498A
AND 506 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief:
"Quash the entire proceedings in CC No.22266/2022 arising out of Crime No.50/2022 registered by the Peenya Police Station pending on the file of XXXI Additional Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860."
2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 is the wife of accused No.1 - Devaraju and the petitioner - accused No.2 is alleged to be a paramour of the aforesaid Devaraju. The respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint dated 22.02.2022 pursuant to which an FIR in Crime No.50/2022 was registered as against the petitioner - accused No.2 and the aforesaid Devaraju - accused No.1.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC:7334 CRL.P No. 7073 of 2023
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, the respondent No.1 - Police Authorities have registered a charge sheet, which is currently pending in C.C.No.22266/2022 before the trial Court. In this context, a perusal of the charge sheet, statement of witnesses, FIR and complaint will clearly indicate that the necessary ingredients constituting offences punishable under Section 506 of IPC are conspicuously absent insofar as the petitioner - accused no.2 is concerned. In fact, the statement of seven witnesses [CW.1 to CW.7], including respondent No.2 -
CW.1 will clearly indicate that the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC has not been made out as against the petitioner -
accused No.2 even if the averments made in the complaint, FIR, charge sheet and statement of witnesses are taken at their face value. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner - accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC deserve to be quashed.
5. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC is concerned, the issue as to whether the paramour of a husband can be dragged into and incriminated for the offence -4- NC: 2025:KHC:7334 CRL.P No. 7073 of 2023 punishable under Section 498A of IPC, is no longer res intera in the light of the following decisions of the Apex Court and this Court:
i. Sunita Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another - 2010 AIR SCW 6112.
ii. Smt. Nandini Nallappan and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Crl.P.No.88/2023 decided on 12.06.2024.
iii. Smt. Harini H Vs. Smt. Kavya H @ Sangeetha and Another - AIR ONLINE 2021 KAR 1597 In U. Suvetha Vs. State of Inspector of Police and Another - (2009) 6 SCC 757, the Apex Court has held as under:
"xxxx
18. By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a "relative".
The word "relative" brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.
19. We may notice that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Rajeti Laxmi v. State of A.P. [(2007) 1 DMC 797 (AP)] held as under: (DMC p. 798, para 4) "4. The entire reading of the charge-sheet and the statements of LWs 1 to 7, goes to show that it is nobody's case of the accused or the prosecution that A-6 is the relative of husband of LW 1. She is only concubine of A-1 and having illicit intimacy with him. Therefore, in the absence of any averment in the charge-sheet or any statement that she is a relative of A-1, I am of the opinion that the offence under Section 498-A IPC does not attract to A-6. Even as per the dictionary meaning 'relative' means a person connected by blood or marriage or 'a species related to another by common origin'. Simply because A-6 is having illicit intimacy with A-1, it cannot be said that she is a relative of A-1. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in CC No. 233 of 2004 for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, -5- NC: 2025:KHC:7334 CRL.P No. 7073 of 2023 against the petitioner A-6. Insofar as the other offences are concerned, it may go on."
20. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Bench at Aurangabad, in Swapnaja v. State of Maharashtra [ Criminal Application No. 388 of 2008 decided on 21-4-2008] opined:
"... Even assuming that due to her extramarital relation with husband of Respondent 2, she is being ill-treated or subjected to harassment by her husband and his relatives, then also it is difficult to say that the applicant is accountable to answer the charge for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC. For, she is not related to husband of Respondent 2 nor can be regarded as the person, who can fall within Explanation (a) or (b) of Section 498-A IPC."
To the similar effect is the law laid down by the same High Court in Ranjana Gopalrao Thorat v. State of Maharashtra [2007 Cri LJ 3866 (Bom)] .
21. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, however, preferred to follow Shivcharan Lal Verma5 in preference to Reema Aggarwal6 to hold that precedentially the former is binding on the High Court, stating:
"Therefore the decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma5 will clearly take precedence over the decision in Reema Aggarwal6. That being the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners would have to be accepted that the provisions of Section 498-A IPC would not be attracted inasmuch as the marriage between Mohit Gupta and Shalini was null and void and Mohit Gupta could not be construed as a 'husband' for the purposes of Section 498-A IPC. Clearly, therefore, the charge under Section 498-A IPC cannot be framed and the Metropolitan Magistrate had correctly declined to frame any charges under Section 498-A IPC."
22. Similar view was taken by a learned Single Judge of the same High Court in Capt. Rajinder Tiwari v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ Criminal Revision Petition No. 872 of 2006 decided on 14-12-2006] stating:
"9. As already indicated above, insofar as the charge under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, that issue is no longer open for debate. The same has been decided by this Court in Mohit Gupta [Mohit Gupta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2006) 3 JCC 1923] applying the ratio of the Supreme Court decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma5. Since the marriage between Rajinder and Meenakshi was a -6- NC: 2025:KHC:7334 CRL.P No. 7073 of 2023 nullity in view of the pendency of Rajinder's divorce proceedings qua his first wife, the offence under Section 498-A, which is specific to 'husband', would not be maintainable, therefore, the impugned order needs to be corrected on this ground also."
23. We are, however, not oblivious of the fact that a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in John Idiculla v. State of Kerala [2005 MLJ (Cri) 841 (Ker)] relying on Reema Aggarwal6 gave a wider meaning to the word "second wife" to hold:
"25. The test under Section 498-A IPC is whether in the facts of each case, it is probable that a woman is treated by friends, relatives, husband or society as a 'wife' or as a mere 'mistress'. If from the pleadings and evidence the Court finds that the woman concerned is regarded as wife and not as a mere mistress, she can be considered to be a 'wife' and consequently as 'the relative of the husband' for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC. Proof of a legal marriage in the rigid sense as required under civil law is unnecessary for establishing an offence under Section 498-A IPC. The expression 'marriage' or 'relative' can be given only a diluted meaning which a common man or society may attribute to those concepts in the common parlance, for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC. A second wife who is treated as wife by the husband, relatives, friends or society can be considered to be 'the relative of the husband' for the purpose of Section 498-A IPC. If she inflicts cruelty on the legally wedded wife of the husband, an offence under Section 498-A IPC will not lie against her."
24. Applying the principles laid down in various decisions referred to above, we have no doubt in our mind, that the appellant is not a relative of the husband of the first informant. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed."
6. The said judgment has been followed subsequently by the Apex Court and this Court in the aforesaid judgments as well as other judgments. In other words, so long as the petitioner was not a family member of the respondent No.2 or her husband, she cannot -7- NC: 2025:KHC:7334 CRL.P No. 7073 of 2023 be held to be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC. Under these circumstances also, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner - accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC deserve to be quashed.
7. Hence, the following:
ORDER a. The petition is hereby allowed.
b. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.22266/2022 arising out of Crime No.50/2022 pending on the file of the XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru qua the petitioner are hereby quashed.
c. Liberty is reserved in favor of the respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against her husband - accused No.1 and also to take recourse to such civil and criminal remedies as available in law Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RB