In a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of legal action in matrimonial disputes, the Karnataka High Court has held that a neighbour or a "stranger" cannot be prosecuted for cruelty under the stringent Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court emphasized that the provision is strictly applicable only to the husband or his relatives.
Verdict Quashes Proceedings Against Neighbour
Justice M Nagaprasanna, in an order pronounced on January 6, 2026, allowed a petition filed by a woman neighbour of an estranged couple. The neighbour had been chargesheeted by the police under multiple sections, including Section 498A (husband or relative of husband subjecting a woman to cruelty), following a complaint by the wife.
The case originated from a marriage that took place in 2006. After matrimonial discord arose, the wife filed a complaint alleging cruelty. During the investigation, the police included the couple's neighbour in the chargesheet, alleging she instigated the husband. This led to the neighbour receiving a summons and subsequently approaching the High Court to quash the proceedings against her.
Court's Reasoning and Legal Interpretation
Justice Nagaprasanna meticulously examined the language of Section 498A IPC. The provision specifically states it applies to "whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty." The court found that the petitioner, being a neighbour, did not fit into the legal definition of a "relative of the husband" as envisaged by the law.
The bench observed that the name of the petitioner appeared in the case only with the allegation of instigation. "A stranger cannot be drawn into the proceedings for offenses under Section 498A of the IPC, between the husband and wife, or the family members," Justice Nagaprasanna stated categorically.
The court relied on a precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Kannojiya and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another, which also held that neighbours of the husband's family cannot be implicated under Section 498A.
Preventing Misuse of Legal Process
In its ruling, the High Court underscored that allowing the prosecution to continue against the neighbour would amount to an "abuse of the process of the law" and could result in a miscarriage of justice. The court quashed the entire proceedings against the petitioner neighbour.
During the hearings, the petitioner's counsel, Advocate Chandan K, argued that his client had no role in the family affairs of the accused and was wrongly implicated due to personal vendetta. The prosecution, represented by Advocate K Nageshwarappa, had contended that the neighbour influenced the husband's behaviour and should face trial.
This judgment reinforces the judicial intent to prevent the misuse of Section 498A by arbitrarily implicating individuals outside the familial sphere, while safeguarding the provision's core purpose of protecting married women from cruelty within the household.
