BENGALURU: <\/em>The Karnataka High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through Justice M. Nagaprasanna<\/strong>, quashed the criminal case against a sister-in-law who was made accused No.4 in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations under Sections 498A<\/a>, 312, 504 and 506 IPC<\/strong>, along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The case arose after the wife filed a complaint against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law<\/strong>. The sister-in-law approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC<\/strong>, arguing that she had been married since 2017, was living in Luxembourg, and had no direct role in the alleged matrimonial dispute.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court carefully looked at the complaint and found that the only allegation against the sister-in-law was that she allegedly called from Luxembourg and influenced the mother-in-law and father-in-law. There was no specific allegation showing her direct involvement in cruelty<\/strong>, dowry demand, forced abortion, insult or criminal intimidation<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court recorded that the entire allegation against her was only this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAll that the petitioner is alleged of in the complaint is that, she was filling in the ear of mother in-law and father in-law by repeatedly calling over the telephone, from Luxemburg. Except this, there is no other allegation against the petitioner.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court said that even if there were phone calls, such alleged instigation cannot automatically become cruelty under Section 498A IPC. It clearly held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cInstigation that too, by way of telephonic conversation would not mean that it would become an ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court relied on several Supreme Court judgments which have warned against dragging every relative of the husband into matrimonial criminal cases through vague and general allegations<\/strong>. It referred to the settled principle that relatives living separately or abroad cannot be forced to face a criminal trial unless there are specific allegations showing their active role.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court noted that continuing the case against the sister-in-law would misuse the criminal process. It observed that permitting further proceedings against accused No.4 would become \u201can abuse of the process of the law\u201d<\/em><\/strong> for the offence under Section 498A IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court also examined the other offences under Sections 312, 504 and 506 IPC<\/strong>. It found that the basic ingredients of these offences were also missing<\/strong>. There was no material to show that the sister-in-law had committed any act amounting to forced miscarriage, intentional insult likely to breach peace, or criminal intimidation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court made its strongest observation while rejecting the wife\u2019s argument that the sister-in-law threatened her over phone calls from Luxembourg. It said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEven if such allegation is accepted at its highest, it scarcely advances the case of the complainant.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court further warned that accepting such a broad argument would dangerously expand criminal law. It held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTo accept such a contention in its unqualified breadth would be to dangerously widen the dragnet of criminal law, so much so that every telephonic communication by an in-law to a daughter-in-law could be projected as criminal culpability. Such an interpretation would be wholly untenable.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Finally, the Karnataka High Court allowed the petition and quashed Crime No.377\/2024 against the sister-in-law<\/strong>. The ruling makes it clear that Section 498A cannot be used to rope in every relative of the husband on vague allegations<\/strong>, especially when the person is living separately abroad and no specific criminal role is shown.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n