(Prayer: This Crl.p is filed u/s.482 of Cr.p.c praying to quash the entire proceedings against petitioner/accused no.5 in cr.no.28/2021 (now c.c.no.32092/2021) registered by mahalakshmi layout police station for the offence p/u/s.498-a, 504, 506, 323 r/w sec.34 of ipc 1860 and sec.3 and 4 of DP Act 1961 on the file of the Honourable Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru vide annexure D. )

Oral Order:

1. The petitioner/accused No.5 is before this Court calling in question proceedings in CC.No.32092/2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

2. Heard Sri. Chandan K. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. 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. 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.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits 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.

5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent would vehemently oppose the petition contending 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.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The marriage between accused No.1 and the complainant appears to have turned sore. The turning of the relationship sore leads the complainant to register a complaint on 13.02.2021 for the aforesaid offences. Since the entire issue is now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows:













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.

9. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAMESH KANNOJIYA & ANR. v. STATE OF UTTRAKHAND & ANR. (SLP (Crl.) No. 7381 of 2023, Disposed on 16.02.2024) , wherein the Apex Court holds 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 judgment reads as follows:

                  "The appellants have been implicated in a case arising out of a complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called “the IPC”) and the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellants are neighbours of the family of the husband (accused no.1). They also appear to have had facilitated the marriage between the complainant and the said accused. Main argument of the appellants is that they are not relatives of the husband and hence they cannot be implicated in any offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellants for quashing the summoning order and the operative part of the judgment reads:

                  “At the initiation of the arguments extended by the learned counsel for the applicant, he attempted to argue the matter from the perspective that if the complaint as it was registered by respondent no.2 on 24.10.2020 is taken into consideration, their names appears in the complaint at serial number 5 and

                  6. He contends, that the entire summoning order which has been issued by the Court of Judicial Magistrate on 27.11.2020 would be bad in the eyes of the law for the reason being that the applicant, since not being related to the other opposite party, they may not be falling within the purview of commission of offence under Section 498A.

                  In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted, that he wants to place reliance on a judgment in which it has been dealt as to what the impact of the term 'relative' would be under Section 498A of IPC, had been considered by the judgment of the Allahabad High Court but, unfortunately, the learned counsel for the applicants is not ready with the said judgment and the various lame excuses have been taken for not being able to present the said judgment before the Court, because for the purposes of appreciation of a case to decide the matter on merits, the judgments are required to be scrutinized In the light of the actual controversy involved 1n a C482 application, and there cannot be only an oral assertion at the behest of the learned counsel for the applicants that the issue stands covered by the certain judgments, without placing the same before the Court.

                  Faced with the aforesaid situation, this Court requested the learned counsel for the applicants to place the judgment before the Court. He said that he does not have the copy of the same and the C482 application may be dismissed.

                  Since, there is no proper assistance provided by the learned counsel for the applicant, the C482 application would stand dismissed.”

                  (quoted verbatim from the judgment as reproduced in the paperbook)

                  Before us, the appellants have relied on the judgment of this Court in the cases of Vijeta Gajra vs. State of NCT of Delhi reported in 2010 (11) SCC 618 and U. Suvetha vs. State By Inspector of Police and Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 757. In the case of Vijeta Gajra (supra), it has been held by a coordinate Bench of this Court:-

                  “12. Relying on the dictionary meaning of the word “relative” and further relying on P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Advance Law Lexicon, Vol. 4, 3rd Edn., the Court went on to hold that Section 498-A IPC being a penal provision would deserve strict construction and unless a contextual meaning is required to be given to the statute, the said statute has to be construed strictly. On that behalf the Court relied on the judgment in T. Ashok Pai v. CIT[(2007) 7 SCC 162]. A reference was made to the decision in Shivcharan Lal Verma & Anr. v. State of M.P.[(2007) 15 SCC 369]. After quoting from various decisions of this Court, it was held that reference to the word “relative” in Section 498-A, IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage.”

                  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."

                  (Emphasis supplied)

                  The Apex Court considers the very aspect as to whether a stranger/neighbour can be drawn into a proceeding under Section 498A of the IPC and holds that it is impermissible in law.

10. 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.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

                  ORDER

                  (i)       Criminal petition is allowed.

                  (ii)      The proceedings in CC.No.32092/2021 on the file of Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore stands quashed qua the petitioner.

                  (iii)     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.