Paramour Of Husband Can't Be Prosecuted U/S 498A IPC: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that a paramour of a husband cannot be dragged into the proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC as they are not a relative or a member of the family.
The petitioners (the alleged paramour and her mother), were accused under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by the wife of the husband.
A Single Bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna observed, “A perusal at the said references in the complaint would indicate an affair between accused No.1 and first petitioner. Therefore, it cannot but be said that the first petitioner was a paramour. It is settled principle of law that a paramour of an accused cannot be dragged into proceedings under Section 498A of IPC as the said accused would not become a relative or a member of the family as is necessary under Section 498A of IPC thus, tumbles down the offence under Section 498A of IPC qua the first petitioner.”
Advocate Rakshit K. S. represented the petitioners, while Sr. Advocate Tomy Sebastian appeared for the respondents.
The wife had argued that the first petitioner was responsible for “all the happenings” in the life of the family members.
The High Court reiterated the settled position of law that a paramour could not be implicated under Section 498A IPC, as the said offence applied to a relative or a member of the family. The court found that the inclusion of the petitioners was an abuse of the process of law.
The Court stated that although the first petitioner was found not to be a paramour of the husband, the ingredients of any of the offences alleged could not be found against her. “There is not even a titter of foundation laid in the complaint qua those offences against the first petitioner. Offences against first petitioner are therefore loosely laid,” the Court remarked.
Regarding the mother of the first petitioner, the Bench observed that “the mother of first petitioner is on the face of it unnecessarily dragged into these proceedings as not even a sentence of semblance of ingredients being present qua the offences so alleged. Therefore, if further proceedings are permitted to be continued, it would become an abuse of process of law.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: N & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:20639)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocate Rakshit K. S.
Respondents: Sr. Advocate Tomy Sebastian; HCGP Thejesh P; Advocate Melanie Sebastian
