Hyderabad<\/em>: <\/strong>The Telangana High Court<\/a><\/strong> quashed criminal proceedings<\/strong> against a woman who was arrayed as Accused No.2 in a matrimonial dispute<\/strong> case. The order was passed by Justice Tirumala Devi Eada<\/strong> in Criminal Petition No.8289 of 2021, holding that a girlfriend cannot be treated as a \u201crelative<\/em>\u201d under Section 498A<\/strong> of the Indian Penal Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case arose from proceedings in C.C. No.6343 of 2021 pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad<\/strong>. The petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 498A, 354D, 427, and 506 IPC<\/strong>. According to the prosecution, she was allegedly the girlfriend<\/strong> of Accused No.1, who is the husband of the de facto complainant<\/strong>. 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<\/strong>, and issued threats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/a><\/strong>. Beyond this general statement, there were no clear or specific acts attributed to her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court extracted the relevant provisions of law and examined whether the allegations satisfied the legal ingredients required for prosecution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Section 498A IPC reads:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSection 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n While interpreting this provision, the Court relied on the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling in Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka<\/strong>. The High Court quoted paragraph 18 of the Apex Court\u2019s judgment, which clearly stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBy no stretch of imagination would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a \u201crelative\u201d. The word \u201crelative\u201d 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201crelative<\/em><\/strong>\u201d under Section 498A IPC. This clarification is crucial because criminal law cannot be stretched beyond its clear wording, especially in matrimonial disputes<\/a><\/strong> where allegations are often broadly framed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also considered the charge under Section 354D IPC (stalking).<\/strong> The provision itself specifies punishment for \u201cany man<\/em><\/strong>\u201d who commits the act described under it. The Court clearly observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe petitioner being a woman cannot be alleged to have committed the offence under Section 354 D IPC as the very provision itself envisages that \u201cany man\u201d who commits the alleged acts described under the section is made punishable\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Since the petitioner was a woman, the statutory language itself excluded her from the scope of Section 354D IPC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding Section 427 IPC (mischief causing damage),<\/strong> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As far as Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation)<\/strong> 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<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its final conclusion, the Court categorically held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNone 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table of All Laws and Sections Mentioned<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Section<\/strong><\/td> Name of Offence<\/strong><\/td> Legal Scope<\/strong><\/td> Key Ingredients<\/strong><\/td> Court\u2019s Finding in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 498A IPC<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Cruelty by Husband or Relative of Husband<\/td> Applies to husband or his \u201crelative\u201d who subjects a married woman to cruelty<\/td> (1) Accused must be husband or relative of husband; (2) Cruelty as defined under the section<\/td> Girlfriend is not a \u201crelative.\u201d No blood, marriage, or adoption link. Section not attracted.<\/td><\/tr> Section 354D IPC<\/strong><\/td> Stalking<\/td> Punishes \u201cany man\u201d who follows, contacts, or monitors a woman despite disinterest<\/td> (1) Accused must be a man; (2) Acts of stalking as defined<\/td> Provision applies only to \u201cany man.\u201d Petitioner is a woman. Section not applicable.<\/td><\/tr> Section 427 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Mischief Causing Damage (\u20b950 or more)<\/td> Punishes act of mischief causing damage of \u20b950 or above<\/td> (1) Act of mischief; (2) Actual damage caused<\/td> Allegations vague. No specific act attributed to petitioner. Not attracted.<\/td><\/tr> Section 506 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Criminal Intimidation<\/td> Punishes threats intended to cause alarm<\/td> (1) Threat; (2) Intention to cause alarm; (3) Injury to person, reputation or property<\/td> No material showing threat causing alarm. Ingredients not satisfied.<\/td><\/tr> Section 482 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Inherent Powers of High Court<\/td> Power to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law<\/td> Abuse of process or lack of prima facie case<\/td> Court exercised power to quash proceedings against petitioner.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Key Supreme Court Precedents Referred<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Case<\/strong><\/td> Citation<\/strong><\/td> Principle Laid Down<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka<\/strong><\/td> 2024 SCC Online SC 3853<\/td> \u201cRelative\u201d under Section 498A means status through blood, marriage, or adoption.<\/td><\/tr> xxx v. State of Gujarat<\/strong><\/td> 2025 SCC Online Guj 1532<\/td> Relied upon for interpretation of applicability in matrimonial offences.<\/td><\/tr> Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka<\/strong><\/td> (2015) 7 SCC 423<\/td> Criminal intimidation requires intention to cause alarm.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n