A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a woman, who was alleged to be in a relationship with the husband of an aggrieved woman. Court held the proceedings nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

 

Appellant Dechamma I  M alias Dechamma Kaushik challenged the validity of the Karnataka High Court's order refusing to quash the proceedings before a court in Gundlupete, Chamarajnagar, for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 109 of IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, against her.

 

On April 19, 2019, an FIR was lodged by the wife against her husband, namely, Adishetty, and Avinash Shetty (brother of her husband), Nataraju (paternal uncle of accused no 1), Prakash (son-in-law of the paternal uncle of accused no1) and the present appellant.

 

It was alleged that prior to the marriage of the complainant with Adishetty, the present appellant was in a relationship with him which had continued even after marriage. It was further alleged that when the same was questioned, the complainant was assaulted mentally and physically. It is also alleged that the present appellant had also scolded the complainant in filthy language on the phone. After the conclusion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against five accused persons on August 1, 2019.

 

The appellant woman approached the High Court which dismissed her plea for quashing the proceedings.

 

Before the apex court, the appellant's counsel contended that even if the allegations in the FIR or in the charge sheet were taken at their face value, no case under Section 498A of IPC was made out against her. She further submitted that the allegations were false and fabricated as the appellant was residing 200 km away with her husband.

 

Relying upon U Suvetha Vs State by Inspector of Police and Another (2009), her counsel submitted that the appellant could not be construed to be a relative within the meaning of the relatives of the husband under the purview of Section 498A of IPC.

 

The appellant's counsel further submitted that the complainant and her husband had amicably settled the matter as amongst them and a decree of divorce by mutual consent had also been passed dissolving the marriage.

 

The division bench pointed out that the top court, in the case of U Suvetha, had an occasion to consider a question as to whether the girlfriend or a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage would be a “relative of the husband” for the purposes of prosecution under Section 498A of IPC.

 

It noted, "This court, after considering the earlier judgments of this court and and the dictionary meaning of a relative, observed thus: 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".

 

The bench, therefore, said, "It could thus be seen that this court has, in unequivocal terms, held that a girlfriend or even a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage could not be construed to be a relative".

 

Apart from that for bringing a case under Section 498A of IPC, the court said, the material placed on record should show that the ill-treatment was meted out by the husband or a relative, which is connected with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.

 

"Taking the allegations at their face value in the FIR or even in the entire material placed in the charge-sheet, it will show that there is no averment or material to show that the appellant was in any way concerned with causing harassment to respondent no 2 (complainant) on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry," the bench said.

 

The court thus allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment of April 12, 2021 and the proceedings pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete.