The Telangana High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a woman accused of harassing her boyfriend’s wife for a mutual consent divorce, holding that none of the offences under Sections 498A, 354D, 427, or 506 IPC were made out against her.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Neha Singh v. State of Telangana
- Court: High Court for the State of Telangana
- Bench: Hon’ble Smt. Justice Tirumala Devi Eada
- Case Number: Criminal Petition No. 8289 of 2021
- Date of Judgment: 03.02.2026
The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 6343 of 2021 pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The offences alleged were under Sections 498A, 354D, 427, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the petitioner was the girlfriend of Accused No.1, who was the husband of the de facto complainant.
It was alleged that she, along with her husband, harassed the complainant for additional dowry, committed stalking by fixing an electronic device in her car, and threatened her.
However, upon examining the complaint and charge sheet, the Court found that the central allegation against the petitioner was limited to harassing the complainant for obtaining a mutual consent divorce. The Court recorded:
“The contents of the complaint and the recitals of charge sheet point out that the petitioner and accused No.1 have harassed the de facto complainant for want of mutual consent divorce. But for that, there is no other allegation against the petitioner herein.”
The allegation regarding the installation of a GPS device in the complainant’s car was attributed specifically to the husband (Accused No.1), with no additional material implicating the petitioner.
Section 498A IPC: Girlfriend Not a “Relative”
The High Court reproduced Section 498A IPC and examined whether the petitioner could be treated as a “relative” of the husband.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka, the Court quoted paragraph 18:
“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 principle, the Court held that the petitioner could not be construed as a relative of the husband within the meaning of Section 498A IPC.
Therefore, the offence under Section 498A was not attracted.
Section 354D IPC: “Any Man”, Provision Not Applicable to a Woman
The Court next examined the allegation under Section 354D IPC (stalking). It reproduced the statutory provision and highlighted that the offence is committed by “any man” who engages in the described acts.
In clear terms, the Court held:
“The petitioner being a woman cannot be alleged to have committed the offence under Section 354D IPC as the very provision itself envisages that ‘any man’ who commits the alleged acts described under the section is made punishable.”
Thus, on the plain language of the statute itself, the stalking charge could not be sustained against the petitioner.
Section 427 IPC: Absence of Specific Allegations of Mischief
With respect to Section 427 IPC (mischief causing damage), the Court emphasized that specific allegations and positive material are required to show that the accused committed an act resulting in loss or damage.
The Court observed that in the present case:
“the allegations are vague and do not point out anything specific to attract the ingredients of Section 427 IPC.”
There was no material indicating that the petitioner had committed any act of mischief causing damage of ₹50 or more, as required under the provision.
Section 506 IPC: No Act of Criminal Intimidation Made Out
As regards Section 506 IPC (criminal intimidation), the Court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka (2015) 7 SCC 423, and explained the essential ingredients of the offence.
The Court stated that there must be a threat of injury to a person, reputation, or property, coupled with the intent to cause alarm.
After examining the complaint, the High Court found:
“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. Hence, the said Section of law do not get attracted against the petitioner.”
Thus, even the charge of criminal intimidation was found to be unsupported by the factual allegations.
Proceedings Quashed
Having examined all four alleged offences, the Court reached a categorical conclusion:
“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 in C.C. No. 6343 of 2021 against the petitioner (Accused No.2) were quashed.
All pending miscellaneous applications were ordered to stand closed.
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
