The Telangana High Court has ruled that a husband’s girlfriend cannot be treated as a “relative” under Section 498A IPC and quashed criminal proceedings against her. The Court found no specific allegations to sustain charges under Sections 498A, 354D, 427, or 506 IPC.
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a woman who was arrayed as Accused No.2 in a matrimonial dispute case. The order was passed by Justice Tirumala Devi Eada in Criminal Petition No.8289 of 2021, holding that a girlfriend cannot be treated as a “relative” under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
The case arose from proceedings in C.C. No.6343 of 2021 pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 498A, 354D, 427, and 506 IPC. According to the prosecution, she was allegedly the girlfriend of Accused No.1, who is the husband of the de facto complainant. It was claimed that she, along with the husband, harassed the wife for additional dowry, installed a GPS device in her car to stalk her, and issued threats.
However, upon examining the complaint and the charge sheet, the High Court found that the only allegation against the petitioner was that she, along with Accused No.1, harassed the complainant to obtain a mutual consent divorce. Beyond this general statement, there were no clear or specific acts attributed to her.
The Court extracted the relevant provisions of law and examined whether the allegations satisfied the legal ingredients required for prosecution.
Section 498A IPC reads:
“Section 498A IPC:- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
While interpreting this provision, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka. The High Court quoted paragraph 18 of the Apex Court’s judgment, which clearly stated:
“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.”
Applying this legal principle, the High Court held that the petitioner, being only an alleged girlfriend of Accused No.1, cannot be brought within the definition of “relative” under Section 498A IPC. This clarification is crucial because criminal law cannot be stretched beyond its clear wording, especially in matrimonial disputes where allegations are often broadly framed.
The Court also considered the charge under Section 354D IPC (stalking). The provision itself specifies punishment for “any man” who commits the act described under it. The Court clearly observed:
“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”.
Since the petitioner was a woman, the statutory language itself excluded her from the scope of Section 354D IPC.
Regarding Section 427 IPC (mischief causing damage), the Court noted that to establish the offence, there must be specific and positive material showing damage caused by the accused. In this case, the allegations were vague and did not point to any concrete act committed by the petitioner.
As far as Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation) is concerned, the Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, which explains that criminal intimidation requires a threat made with intent to cause alarm. After examining the complaint, the High Court found that there was no material to show that the petitioner had threatened the complainant in a manner that would cause alarm.
In its final conclusion, the Court categorically held:
“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.”
Accordingly, the Criminal Petition was allowed, and the proceedings against Accused No.2 were quashed. All pending miscellaneous applications were also ordered to be closed.
This judgment reinforces an important legal principle: criminal provisions, particularly in matrimonial cases, must be strictly interpreted and applied only when the essential ingredients are clearly made out.
Explanatory Table of All Laws and Sections Mentioned
| Section | Name of Offence | Legal Scope | Key Ingredients | Court’s Finding in This Case |
| Section 498A IPC | Cruelty by Husband or Relative of Husband | Applies to husband or his “relative” who subjects a married woman to cruelty | (1) Accused must be husband or relative of husband; (2) Cruelty as defined under the section | Girlfriend is not a “relative.” No blood, marriage, or adoption link. Section not attracted. |
| Section 354D IPC | Stalking | Punishes “any man” who follows, contacts, or monitors a woman despite disinterest | (1) Accused must be a man; (2) Acts of stalking as defined | Provision applies only to “any man.” Petitioner is a woman. Section not applicable. |
| Section 427 IPC | Mischief Causing Damage (₹50 or more) | Punishes act of mischief causing damage of ₹50 or above | (1) Act of mischief; (2) Actual damage caused | Allegations vague. No specific act attributed to petitioner. Not attracted. |
| Section 506 IPC | Criminal Intimidation | Punishes threats intended to cause alarm | (1) Threat; (2) Intention to cause alarm; (3) Injury to person, reputation or property | No material showing threat causing alarm. Ingredients not satisfied. |
| Section 482 CrPC | Inherent Powers of High Court | Power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law | Abuse of process or lack of prima facie case | Court exercised power to quash proceedings against petitioner. |
Key Supreme Court Precedents Referred
| Case | Citation | Principle Laid Down |
| Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka | 2024 SCC Online SC 3853 | “Relative” under Section 498A means status through blood, marriage, or adoption. |
| xxx v. State of Gujarat | 2025 SCC Online Guj 1532 | Relied upon for interpretation of applicability in matrimonial offences. |
| Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka | (2015) 7 SCC 423 | Criminal intimidation requires intention to cause alarm. |
Case Details
- Court: High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad
- Case Title: Neha Singh v. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Public Prosecutor & another
- Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 8289 of 2021
- Date of Order: 03.02.2026
- Bench: Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada
- Petitioner: Neha Singh (Accused No.2)
- Respondents: The State of Telangana, represented by its Public Prosecutor & Another (De facto complainant)
- Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Kopal Sharraf (Counsel on Record) & Sri Pradyuman Kaistha (Arguing Counsel)
- Counsel for Respondent No.1 (State): Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor
- Lower Court Case: C.C. No. 6343 of 2021. On the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad
Key Takeaways
- Section 498A applies only to the husband or his legally recognized relatives. Courts have reaffirmed that it cannot be casually extended to unrelated third parties.
- Criminal prosecution requires specific and clear allegations. Vague accusations are not enough to drag someone through years of trial.
- Section 354D IPC applies only to “any man.” The plain language of the statute cannot be ignored to suit a narrative.
- Criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC requires proof of real threat and intention to cause alarm, not emotional or general allegations.
- High Courts must continue to exercise powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process, especially in matrimonial disputes where criminal law is often used as pressure tactic rather than a remedy.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.