Girlfriend Cannot Be Deemed ‘Relative’ of Husband: Telangana HC [Read Order]

Telangana: The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman accused as a co-conspirator in a matrimonial dispute case, holding that a girlfriend cannot be construed as a “relative” of the husband within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and that a woman cannot be charged with stalking under Section 354D IPC, which explicitly applies only to “any man.”

Justice Tirumala Devi Eada passed the order while allowing a criminal petition filed by one Neha Singh, who was arrayed as Accused No. 2 in a complaint filed by the wife of Accused No. 1, alleging offences under Sections 498A (cruelty by husband or relative of husband), 354D (stalking), 427 (mischief), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC.

The prosecution case was that the petitioner was the girlfriend of Accused No. 1 (the husband of the complainant) and that she, along with Accused No. 1, harassed the complainant for want of additional dowry, committed stalking by fixing an electronic device in her car, and threatened her.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the only allegation against his client was that she, along with Accused No. 1, harassed the complainant to obtain a mutual consent divorce. He contended that there was no material to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner and that, even as per the statement of the complainant, there were no specific allegations against her.

The counsel argued that Section 498A does not apply to the petitioner as she is in no way related either to Accused No. 1 or the complainant. He further submitted that the offence under Section 354D also does not apply to Accused No. 2, who is a woman, and that the ingredients do not make out any offences under Sections 427 or 506 IPC.

The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka and Another [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3853] and Xxx v. State of Gujarat and Another [2025 SCC OnLine Guj 1532].

The Additional Public Prosecutor, however, submitted that the law is well settled regarding the applicability of Section 498A to a girlfriend or concubine, and that the allegation under Section 506 IPC may be attracted as the allegations prima facie make out the said offence.

Examining the applicability of Section 498A IPC, the Court noted that the provision applies to “whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty.”

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Dechamma (supra), the Court extracted paragraph 18, which held:
“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 a relative of another would not arise.”

The Court held that the petitioner, being a girlfriend, cannot be construed to be a relative of Accused No. 1 as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Addressing the charge under Section 354D IPC, the Court observed that the provision itself envisages that “any man” who commits the acts described under the section is made punishable. The Court held that the petitioner, being a woman, cannot be alleged to have committed the offence under Section 354D IPC.

Regarding Section 427 IPC (mischief), the Court observed that to attract the offence, the allegations must be specific and there should be positive material on record to point out the act of mischief by the petitioner. The Court found that the allegations were vague and did not disclose anything specific to attract the ingredients of Section 427 IPC.

For the offence under Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation), the Court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka [(2015) 7 SCC 423], which held that there must be an act of threatening another person with injury to person, reputation, or property, and the threat must be with intent to cause alarm or to compel the person to do any act which he or she is not legally bound to do.

The Court observed that upon examining the contents of the complaint, no such incident of causing alarm to the complainant was made out against the petitioner, and hence Section 506 IPC did not apply.

The Court therefore held:
“Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, none of the allegations make out a prima facie case against the petitioner herein to attract the offences under Sections 498A, 354D, 427 and 506 of the IPC. Hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law.”

Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 6343 of 2021 pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

Appearances:
For Petitioner: Sri Kopal Sharraf (Counsel on Record); Sri Pradyuman Kaistha (Arguing Counsel)
For Respondent: Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Neha Singh v. The State of Telangana & Anr. (Criminal Petition No. 8289 of 2021)

[Read Order]