Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court

“Stranger to Marriage Cannot Be Roped in Under 498A IPC Merely for Instigating the Husband”, Karnataka High Court reinforcing the principle that only a “relative” of the husband can be prosecuted under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and not a neighbour or stranger. Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, holding that the continuation of trial would be “an abuse of the process of law” and would “result in miscarriage of justice.”

The judgment has far-reaching implications on the scope and misuse of Section 498A IPC, especially in cases where third parties such as neighbours or acquaintances are alleged to have merely instigated cruelty, without any direct involvement or familial relationship with the husband.

“Neighbours Do Not Fall Within the Ambit of ‘Relative’ Under Section 498A IPC”: Court Cites Binding Precedents

The case concerned Asha G, a woman who was arrayed as accused no. 5 in proceedings under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with Section 34 IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, based on a complaint filed by the wife of accused no.1. The only allegation against the petitioner was that she had instigated the husband to behave cruelly towards the complainant.

The Court, after examining the charge sheet and the FIR, categorically held that no specific overt act or prima facie evidence was alleged against the petitioner. More crucially, she was a neighbour and not related by blood or marriage to the complainant’s husband.

Justice Nagaprasanna observed:

"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."

Allegation of Instigation by Neighbour in a Matrimonial Dispute

The complainant had registered a police complaint on 13.02.2021, alleging dowry harassment and physical abuse by her husband and his family. The petitioner, a neighbour, was accused of provoking the husband. The complaint led to the registration of C.C. No. 32092/2021. The police filed a charge sheet, and summons were issued, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek quashing of the proceedings.

The petitioner argued that she was neither a blood relative nor a relation by marriage and had been unnecessarily dragged into the proceedings based on vague and omnibus allegations. The State, however, contended that she was responsible for influencing the husband's behaviour, and therefore, should face trial.

Section 498A IPC Requires Strict Interpretation of “Relative”

In determining the scope of Section 498A IPC, Justice Nagaprasanna relied extensively on binding Supreme Court precedents. The High Court cited and applied the ruling in Ramesh Kannojiya & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand, where the Apex Court quashed proceedings under Section 498A IPC against neighbours, emphasizing that “the word ‘relative’ must be construed strictly.”

Quoting from the Supreme Court’s judgment in U. Suvetha v. State and Vijeta Gajra v. State of NCT of Delhi, the High Court noted:

“Reference to the word ‘relative’ in Section 498-A IPC would be limited only to the blood relations or the relations by marriage.”

The Court further underlined:

"Permitting further proceedings against this petitioner would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice."

Justice Nagaprasanna also emphasized that penal provisions demand strict construction and cannot be extended beyond their legitimate scope merely to satisfy the subjective grievance of a complainant.

Abuse of Criminal Process and Misuse of Section 498A

Having found that the complaint and charge sheet lacked any material against the petitioner, the High Court held that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to misuse of judicial machinery. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings only with respect to the petitioner, clarifying that its observations would not impact the case against the other accused.

“For the aforesaid reasons… The proceedings in CC.No.32092/2021 on the file of Hon’ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore stands quashed qua the petitioner.”

It was also expressly stated 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.”

Reinforcing Judicial Discipline in Misuse of 498A IPC

This judgment adds to a growing line of judicial pronouncements discouraging the casual roping in of third parties, particularly neighbours or acquaintances, into matrimonial disputes. By reiterating the strict interpretation of the word “relative” under Section 498A IPC, the Karnataka High Court has not only protected the liberty of innocent individuals but also reaffirmed the sanctity of criminal proceedings, which must be based on clear and cogent material.

Justice Nagaprasanna's ruling stands as a cautionary reminder against the weaponization of criminal law in family disputes and upholds the constitutional mandate of fair trial and due process.

Date of Decision: January 6, 2026