Introduction:

In Asha G v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Petition No. 1504 of 2023, cited as 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 3, the Karnataka High Court, through Justice M. Nagaprasanna, reaffirmed a crucial safeguard in criminal jurisprudence by holding that a stranger or neighbour cannot be roped into proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code arising out of a matrimonial dispute between husband and wife or their family members, the case concerned a woman who was merely a neighbour of the complainant’s husband and was nonetheless arrayed as an accused along with family members of the husband for offences under Sections 498A, 504, 506, and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, the Court was called upon to determine whether such an expansion of criminal liability beyond the statutorily recognized circle of family members could be legally sustained, especially when the only allegation against the neighbour was that she had “instigated” the husband, the Court’s ruling engages deeply with the legislative intent of Section 498A, the meaning of cruelty within matrimonial relationships, the boundaries of criminal conspiracy in domestic settings, and the need to prevent abuse of criminal process as a retaliatory tool in marital breakdowns, by quashing the proceedings against the neighbour, the Court underscored that criminal law cannot be weaponized to widen the scope of liability beyond what the statute permits, particularly when liberty of a person with no domestic or familial nexus is at stake.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, Asha G, contended that she had no relationship whatsoever with the marital household of the complainant except being a neighbour and that she neither resided with the husband nor exercised any control over the domestic affairs of the couple, it was argued that Section 498A is specifically intended to address cruelty inflicted by the husband or his relatives and does not extend to third parties who are strangers to the matrimonial relationship, the petitioner emphasized that the complaint and the charge sheet contained no specific acts of cruelty attributable to her except a vague allegation that she “instigated” the husband, which, according to settled law, is insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution, she further argued that allowing prosecution to continue would amount to harassment and abuse of process of law, defeating the very principles of fairness and proportionality in criminal justice, reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents including Ramesh Kannojia & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2024), where it was held that neighbours or unrelated persons cannot be considered “relatives” for the purpose of Section 498A, and therefore cannot be implicated merely on the basis of association or proximity, the petitioner also submitted that matrimonial disputes often involve heightened emotions and retaliatory litigation, and courts must be vigilant to ensure that criminal law is not used as a tool of vengeance against socially proximate but legally irrelevant persons, on the other hand, the complainant opposed the petition arguing that the petitioner had actively instigated the husband to harass and torture the wife, and therefore she should be tried along with other accused to determine her role, it was contended that instigation forms part of common intention under Section 34 IPC and that culpability cannot be dismissed at the threshold merely because the petitioner is not a relative, the prosecution supported the complainant’s stance and submitted that the truth of the allegations should be tested during trial rather than quashed at the preliminary stage, it was argued that premature quashing would deprive the complainant of the opportunity to establish the full chain of events and participation of all persons involved, however, neither the complainant nor the prosecution could point to any concrete incident, communication, or overt act attributed to the petitioner beyond the bald assertion of instigation, and no material was placed to show any form of domestic involvement or continuous interaction in the marital discord.

Court’s Judgment:

The Karnataka High Court, after examining the complaint and the charge sheet, categorically held that the petitioner did not fit within the statutory framework of Section 498A, which contemplates cruelty inflicted by the husband or his relatives, the Court observed that the name of the petitioner appeared only in a sweeping allegation that she instigated the husband and that there were no factual particulars to show participation in acts of cruelty, physical assault, or sustained harassment, Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that Section 498A is a special provision enacted to address domestic cruelty within the familial unit and cannot be extended to strangers merely because they are socially connected or geographically proximate, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ramesh Kannojia where it was clearly held that neighbours of the husband’s family are not relatives and cannot be implicated under Section 498A, the High Court further reasoned that criminal law must not be expanded through interpretative overreach to include persons who fall outside the legislative intent of the provision, it held that permitting such prosecutions would open floodgates for indiscriminate arraignment of unrelated persons, turning matrimonial disputes into instruments of social vendetta, the Court also rejected the argument of common intention under Section 34 IPC, holding that in the absence of any substantive role or material evidence, Section 34 cannot be mechanically invoked to justify inclusion of a stranger, the Court stated that criminal liability cannot be founded on conjecture, suspicion, or emotional accusations, particularly when liberty and reputation of an innocent person are at stake, it concluded that continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law and would result in miscarriage of justice, accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings insofar as they related to the petitioner, while leaving the case to proceed against the husband and other family members as per law, the judgment thus reinforces judicial responsibility to act as a constitutional filter against misuse of penal provisions, especially in emotionally charged matrimonial litigation where exaggeration and over-implication are not uncommon.