b069f837-9388-4f97-95fb-46d060b6c09a (1)

2024 INSC 972 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3421 of 2022)
DECHAMMA I.M. @ DECHAMMA KOUSHIK

…APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Though Respondent No.2 has been duly served with
notice, she has chosen not to appear.
3. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of

Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Karnataka at Bengaluru, thereby dismissing the criminal
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2024.12.13
17:38:22 IST
petition filed by the present appellant for quashing the

Reason:
1
proceedings in Crime No. 339 of 2019 on the file of Court of
Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete, Chamarajnagar,
which has registered Gundlupete P.S. Cr. No. 172 of 2019 as
against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections
498A, 504, 109 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’)
and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,
against the appellant.
4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal by
way of special leave are as under:
4.1 On 19th April 2019, an FIR came to be lodged by
respondent No.2 against her husband, namely, Adishetty,
and Avinash Shetty (brother of her husband), Nataraju
(paternal uncle of accused No.1), Prakash (son-in-law of the
paternal uncle of accused No.1) and the appellant herein.
4.2 As per the said FIR, respondent No.2/complainant got
married to one Adishetty on 6th November 2017. It is alleged
that at the time of marriage a sum or Rs.3 Lakhs, 25 grams
of gold ornaments and other articles were given in dowry. It
is stated by her that she lived happily for six months in her
matrimonial house at Gundlapete. It is further alleged that
the husband of respondent No.2, namely, Adishetty and

2
accused Nso.3 and 4 have colluded with each other and have
harassed respondent No.2 physically as well as mentally.
4.3 Insofar as the allegation against the appellant herein is
concerned, it is alleged that prior to the marriage of
respondent No.2 with Adishetty, the present appellant was in
a relationship with the said Adishetty which has continued
even after marriage. It is further alleged that when the same
was questioned, respondent No.2 was assaulted mentally and
physically. It is also alleged that the appellant herein had
also scolded respondent No.2/complainant in a filthy
language through phone. After the conclusion of the
investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against five
accused persons on 1st August 2019.
4.4 After filing of the charge-sheet, the appellant filed a
petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1873 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) praying for quashing of
the proceedings in Crime No.339 of 2019. However, the
learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order
rejected the said petition. Hence this appeal by way of
special leave.
3
5. We have heard Smt. K.V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri D.L.
Chidananda, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State.
6. Smt. Upadhyaya submits that even if the allegations in
the FIR or in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value,
no case under Section 498A of IPC is made out against the
appellant herein. She further submits that the allegations are
false and fabricated as the appellant is residing 200 kms.,
away with her husband. Relying on the judgment of this
Court in the case of U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of
Police and Another1, Ms. Upadhyaya submits that the
appellant cannot be construed to be a relative within the
meaning of the relatives of the husband under the purview of
Section 498A of IPC. She, therefore, submits that the
proceedings deserve to be quashed.
7. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 and
accused No.1 have amicably settled the matter as amongst
them and a decree of divorce by mutual consent has also
been passed dissolving the marriage between respondent
No.2 and accused No.1.
1
(2009) 6 SCC 757 : 2009 INSC 740
4
8. This Court, in the case of U. Suvetha (supra), had an
occasion to consider a question as to whether the girlfriend
or a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual
relations outside of marriage would be a “relative of the
husband” for the purposes of prosecution under Section
498A of IPC.
9. This Court, after considering the earlier judgments of
this Court and the dictionary meaning of a relative, observed
thus:-
“18. By no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend

or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a
“relative”. The word “relative” brings within its
purview a status. Such a status must be conferred
either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no
marriage has taken place, the question of one being
relative of another would not arise.”
10. It could thus be seen that this Court has, in
unequivocal terms, held that a girlfriend or even a woman
with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations
outside of marriage could not be construed to be a relative.
11. Apart from that for bringing a case under Section 498A
of IPC, the material placed on record should show that the ill
5
treatment was meted out by the husband or a relative, which
is connected with non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.
12. Taking the allegations at their face value in the FIR or
even in the entire material placed in the charge-sheet, it will
show that there is no averment or material to show that the
appellant was in any way concerned with causing
harassment to respondent No.2 on account of non-fulfilment
of demand of dowry.
13. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view
that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the
appellant herein would be nothing else but an abuse of
process of law. We find that the present appeal deserves to be
allowed.
14. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is accordingly allowed;
(ii) The judgment and order of the High Court dated 12th
April 2021 is quashed and set aside; and
(iii) The proceedings in Crime No.339 of 2019 on the file
of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete for
the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504,
6
109 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, are quashed and set aside qua the
appellant herein.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
..............................J.
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 04, 2024.

b069f837-9388-4f97-95fb-46d060b6c09a (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

b069f837-9388-4f97-95fb-46d060b6c09a (1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

b069f837-9388-4f97-95fb-46d060b6c09a (1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2024 INSC 972 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

DECHAMMA I.M. @ DECHAMMA KOUSHIK

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

2. Though Respondent No.2 has been duly served with

notice, she has chosen not to appear.

3. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order

passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of

petition filed by the present appellant for quashing the

Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupete, Chamarajnagar,

which has registered Gundlupete P.S. Cr. No. 172 of 2019 as

against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,

against the appellant.

4. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal by

way of special leave are as under:

4.1 On 19th April 2019, an FIR came to be lodged by

respondent No.2 against her husband, namely, Adishetty,

and Avinash Shetty (brother of her husband), Nataraju

(paternal uncle of accused No.1), Prakash (son-in-law of the

paternal uncle of accused No.1) and the appellant herein.

4.2 As per the said FIR, respondent No.2/complainant got

married to one Adishetty on 6th November 2017. It is alleged

that at the time of marriage a sum or Rs.3 Lakhs, 25 grams

of gold ornaments and other articles were given in dowry. It

matrimonial house at Gundlapete. It is further alleged that

the husband of respondent No.2, namely, Adishetty and

harassed respondent No.2 physically as well as mentally.

4.3 Insofar as the allegation against the appellant herein is

concerned, it is alleged that prior to the marriage of

respondent No.2 with Adishetty, the present appellant was in

a relationship with the said Adishetty which has continued

even after marriage. It is further alleged that when the same

was questioned, respondent No.2 was assaulted mentally and

physically. It is also alleged that the appellant herein had

also scolded respondent No.2/complainant in a filthy

language through phone. After the conclusion of the

investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against five

accused persons on 1st August 2019.

4.4 After filing of the charge-sheet, the appellant filed a

petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1873 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) praying for quashing of

the proceedings in Crime No.339 of 2019. However, the

learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order

rejected the said petition. Hence this appeal by way of

counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri D.L.

Chidananda, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State.

6. Smt. Upadhyaya submits that even if the allegations in

the FIR or in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value,

no case under Section 498A of IPC is made out against the

appellant herein. She further submits that the allegations are

false and fabricated as the appellant is residing 200 kms.,

away with her husband. Relying on the judgment of this

Court in the case of U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of

Police and Another1, Ms. Upadhyaya submits that the

appellant cannot be construed to be a relative within the

meaning of the relatives of the husband under the purview of

Section 498A of IPC. She, therefore, submits that the

proceedings deserve to be quashed.