Karnataka High Court was hearing a plea from a neighbour who was booked under Section 498A. (Image enhanced using AI)
The Karnataka High Court recently held that a “stranger” cannot be prosecuted for cruelty in a matrimonial case, as they do not fall within the legal definition of a relative of the husband as described in the relevant provision of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Section 498A of IPC deals with the offence of a “husband or relative of the husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty” and stipulates, “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
Justice M Nagaprasanna was on January 6 dealing with the plea filed by a woman, who is the neighbour of the estranged couple, and was booked under the provisions of cruelty and held that she “would not fit into the definition of family as is obtaining under the provision”.
The woman filed a plea against the proceedings in which she was chargesheeted under Sections 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), and 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC.
The petitioner was the neighbour of a couple who got married in 2006, and following the matrimonial dispute, the wife registered a complaint of cruelty against the husband.
Following the complaint, the police filed the chargesheet in the case and issued a summons against the neighbour; therefore, she approached the high court.
The counsel appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Chandan K, submitted that she has no role to play in the family of the other accused.
He further argued that the petitioner is a neighbour, and the only allegation against her is that she has instigated the husband to behave in a particular manner; therefore, developing an axe to grind, the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the case at hand.
Representing the prosecution, advocate K Nageshwarappa argued that the petitioner was the reason for all the behaviour of the husband and therefore, the petitioner should also stand trial and come out clean in the same.
Curated by Shiv Shakti Mishra
