Husband's Girlfriend Cannot Be Treated As 'Relative' U/S 498A IPC: Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against Woman

The Telangana High Court, in a recent judgment, has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman arrayed as Accused No.2 in a criminal complaint, reiterating that a girlfriend cannot be construed as a “relative” of the man within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice Tirumala Devi Eada, while considering a petition seeking quashing of proceedings in a complaint case pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, further found that the allegations in the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under 498A, 354D,427 and 506 IPC.

The prosecution's case was that the petitioner was the girlfriend of Accused No.1, who is the husband of the de facto complainant. It was alleged that she, along with Accused No.1, harassed the complainant for want of additional dowry, as well as committed stalking by fixing an electronic device in her car, and threatened her.

Assailing the proceedings, the petitioner contended that the only allegation against her was that she, along with Accused No.1, harassed the complainant for obtaining a mutual consent divorce. It was submitted that there were no specific allegations even in the statement of the de facto complainant attributing distinct acts to her so as to attract the offences alleged. It was further argued that the offence under Section 498A could not be attracted to the accused, as she was in no way a relative of the Accused No. 1 or the de facto complainant. Similarly, the allegations under Section 354-D were also assailed on the ground that the Accused No. 2 is a woman and hence outside the purview of the section.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, however, contended that Section 498A IPC could apply even to a girlfriend or concubine as the law was settled on it and that the allegation under Section 506 IPC prima facie attracted the offence.

Examining the recitals of the complaint and the charge sheet, the High Court noted that apart from the allegation that the petitioner and Accused No.1 harassed the complainant for mutual consent divorce, there were no specific acts attributed to her.

On the applicability of Section 498A IPC, the Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka, wherein it was held that the term “relative” under Section 498A IPC brings within its ambit a status conferred by blood, marriage or adoption, and that by no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or concubine fall within that expression. In light of the said principle, the Court held that the petitioner, being alleged only as a girlfriend of Accused No.1, cannot be treated as a relative so as to attract Section 498A IPC.

Further, turning to Section 354D IPC, the Court observed that the provision itself contemplates that “any man” who commits the acts described therein is punishable. “The petitioner being a woman cannot be alleged to have committed the offence under Section 354 D IPC as the very provision itself envisages that “any man” who commits the alleged acts described under the section is made punishable”, the Court observed. Hence, since the petitioner is a woman, the offence under Section 354D IPC could not be attracted against her.

With regard to Section 427 IPC, the Court held that to constitute mischief, there must be specific allegations and material pointing to the commission of the act. The allegations in the present case were found to be “vague” and not indicative of any specific act attributable to the petitioner.

As to Section 506 IPC, the Court referred to the decision in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, which explains that criminal intimidation requires a threat with intent to cause alarm to the person threatened. On perusal of the complaint, the Court found that no such incident of causing alarm was made out against the petitioner.

In view of the above, the Court held that “None of the allegations make out a prima facie case against the petitioner herein to attract the offences under Sec 498A, 354-D,427 and 506 of the IPC. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law”.

Consequently, the Criminal petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioner were quashed. Subsequently, pending miscellaneous applications were directed to stand closed.

Case Name: Neha Singh v The State of Telangana

Case No. : Criminal Petition No. 8289 of 2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order