Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Telangana Single Bench of Justice Tirumala Devi Eada has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman arrayed as Accused No.2 in a complaint pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, holding that a girlfriend of the husband cannot be treated as a “relative” for the purpose of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from allegations by the complainant-wife that she was subjected to cruelty and intimidation, and that electronic surveillance was carried out by fixing a tracking device in her car, besides claims of mischief to property. The Court found that the complaint and charge-sheet material did not disclose the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 498A, 354D, 427 and 506 IPC as against Accused No.2, and closed the case against her.

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was the girlfriend of Accused No.1, the husband of the de facto complainant, and that she acted in concert with him to subject the complainant to harassment over demands for additional dowry. It was further alleged that she stalked the complainant by installing an electronic device in her car and issued threats to her.

Also Read: High Courts Cannot Nullify Ongoing Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court

The petitioner contended that she was neither related to Accused No.1 nor to the de facto complainant and that the only allegation was harassment for obtaining mutual consent divorce. It was argued that no specific material existed to attract the offences alleged. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that Section 498A could apply and that the allegation under Section 506 IPC prima facie attracted the offence. The Court examined the complaint, the recitals of the charge sheet, and the statutory provisions invoked.

With regard to Section 498A IPC, the Court extracted the statutory provision and recorded that it applies to the “husband or the relative of the husband of a woman.” Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka, the Court recorded as follows: “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.” The Court observed that the petitioner cannot be construed to be a relative of Accused No.1.

In relation to Section 354D IPC, the Court recorded that the provision itself envisages that “any man” who commits the alleged acts described under the section is made punishable, and stated that the petitioner being a woman cannot be alleged to have committed the offence under Section 354D IPC.

Considering Section 427 IPC, the Court observed: “To attract the offence under Section 427 IPC, the allegations have to be specific and there should be some positive material on record to point out the said act of mischief by the petitioner as against the de facto complainant.” It recorded that the allegations are vague and do not point out anything specific to attract the ingredients of Section 427 IPC.

As regards Section 506 IPC, the Court referred to the precedent  in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka and stated that there must be an act of threatening causing injury with intent to cause alarm. It recorded: “In the present case, when the ingredients of the complaint are looked into, no such incidents of causing alarm to the defacto complainant are made out.” The Court concluded: “None of the allegations make out a prima facie case against the petitioner herein to attract the offences under Sections 498A, 354-D, 427 and 506 of IPC. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law.”

Also Read: Mere Apprehension Of Adverse Order Not Ground To Transfer Civil Suit U/S 24 CPC: Telangana High Court

The Court directed: “Hence, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.6343 of 2021, on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.”

Advocates Representing the PartiesFor the Petitioners: Sri Kopal Sharraf (counsel on record), Sri Pradyuman Kaistha (arguing counsel)
For the Respondents: Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Neha Singh v. The State of Telangana
Case Number: Criminal Petition No.8289 of 2021
Bench: Justice Tirumala Devi Eada