Recently, the Telangana High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a woman accused of harassing her boyfriend’s wife, holding that a girlfriend cannot be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC as she does not fall within the statutory expression “relative of the husband.” The Court further ruled that offences under Sections 354D, 427 and 506 IPC were not prima facie made out in the absence of specific allegations, cautioning that “vague and omnibus allegations” cannot justify continuation of criminal prosecution and that such proceedings amount to an “abuse of process of law.”
Brief Facts:
The case arose from Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Neha Singh, seeking quashing of proceedings in pending before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The complaint had been registered for offences under Sections 498A (cruelty), 354D (stalking), 427 (mischief), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code. The de facto complainant alleged that her husband and the petitioner, described as his girlfriend, had jointly harassed her to compel a mutual consent divorce.
It was further alleged that a GPS tracking device had been installed in her car and that threats were extended to her. The petitioner, however, asserted that she had no marital or blood relationship with the husband and that the allegations were bald, unspecific, and legally untenable. Invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court, she contended that continuation of the criminal case would amount to misuse of the judicial process.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
Counsel for the petitioner argued that Section 498A IPC is confined strictly to the “husband or relative of the husband,” and a girlfriend cannot, by any stretch of statutory interpretation, be brought within that ambit. Strong reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dechamma I.M. v. State of Karnataka (2024), where it was categorically held that a concubine or girlfriend does not qualify as a “relative” for the purposes of Section 498A.
It was further contended that Section 354D IPC, by its express wording, applies to “any man,” thereby excluding its invocation against a woman. As regards Sections 427 and 506 IPC, counsel submitted that the complaint lacked the essential factual foundation to establish mischief or criminal intimidation. No specific overt act, no identifiable threat, and no material particulars were attributed to the petitioner. The proceedings, it was argued, were founded on conjecture and deserved to be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, contending that the complaint and charge sheet disclosed prima facie allegations warranting a full-fledged trial. It was submitted that the role of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is limited and that disputed factual issues ought not to be adjudicated at the threshold. In particular, the State argued that the allegations relating to criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC required evidentiary appreciation and should not be short-circuited by quashing proceedings at the pre-trial stage.
Observations of the Court:
Upon examining the complaint and charge sheet, the High Court found that the only substantive allegation against the petitioner was that she, along with Accused No.1, pressured the complainant to agree to a mutual consent divorce. The Court noted that the statutory scope of Section 498A IPC is unambiguous and confined to the husband or his relatives. Relying squarely on Dechamma I.M., the Court reiterated that the expression “relative” denotes a relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption, and that a girlfriend does not fall within this legally recognized category. Consequently, the very foundation for invoking Section 498A against the petitioner was held to be unsustainable.
Turning to Section 354D IPC, the Court emphasized the clear legislative language which applies to “any man” who commits stalking. The Court observed that when the statutory text is explicit, courts cannot enlarge its scope through interpretative expansion. As the petitioner was a woman, prosecution under Section 354D was legally impermissible. With respect to Section 427 IPC, the Court found a complete absence of specific or concrete allegations attributing any act of damage or mischief to the petitioner. Mere general assertions, without identifying the actus reus, were insufficient to sustain the charge.
On the question of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC, the Court relied on Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, reiterating that criminal intimidation requires a “specific threat with intent to cause alarm.” The complaint, however, did not disclose any clear, direct, or attributable threat made by the petitioner. In categorical terms, the Court held that “vague and general allegations without specific material cannot sustain criminal prosecution,” and that allowing such proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
The decision of the Court:
The Court allowed the Criminal Petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, holding that none of the alleged offences under Sections 498A, 354D, 427, or 506 IPC were prima facie made out. The core ratio of the judgment affirms that criminal liability cannot be fastened beyond the clear statutory framework, and that prosecution based on vague, omnibus allegations, particularly against individuals who do not fall within the defined scope of penal provisions, constitutes an abuse of process warranting exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC.
Case Title: Neha Singh Vs. The State of Telengana
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. - 8289 Of 2025
Coram: Justice Tirumala Devi Eada
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Kopal Sharraf, Pradyuman Kaistha
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Jitender Rao Veeramalla
Read Judgments @Latestlaws.com
