THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9904 OF 2021
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.871 of 2021 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. Heard K.Mohan Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent - State and Sri K.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
3. The 2nd respondent filed the complaint stating that she married A1 in the year 1996. Several gifts and cash were given at the time of marriage and they were blessed with three children i.e., two sons and one daughter. A1 started harassing the 2nd respondent physically and mentally and family members also supported him. There are several allegations narrated in the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. However, they are not germane to the adjudication of the present petition.
4. In the complaint, she mentions that this petitioner is a concubine and A1 was leading a peaceful life with her. Except stating that her husband was having an affair with this petitioner/A11, there is no other allegation in the complaint. The 2 complaint does not mention that she met this petitioner at any point of time. There was neither any confrontation nor any altercation in between the 2nd respondent and the petitioner herein.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that A1/husband having an affair with this petitioner would amount to an offence of criminal intimidation. He has filed a detailed counter stating that there are money transactions in between A1 and this petitioner and A1 had transferred certain amount to her account. Further, whether an offence under IPC is made out or not are subject matter before trial Court and this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C cannot scuttle the legitimate prosecution and it is for the trial Court to decide the allegations leveled against this petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of U.Suvetha v. State, rep. by Inspector of Police1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a concubine or a girl friend would not fall within the definition of a relative under Section 498-A of IPC. He also relied upon the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Anumala Aruna Deepika v. State 1 2009 LF(SC) 1824 3 in I.A.No.2 of 2021 Criminal Petition No.3838 of 2021, dated 12.07.2021, wherein the High Court held that a girl friend or a concubine is not liable for prosecution under Section 498-A of IPC and accordingly quashed the proceedings.
7. The petitioner is now being prosecuted only for the reason of the 2nd respondent's husband/A1 having an affair with her. In the absence of any allegation against this petitioner that she had threatened her in any manner, the question of attracting the penal consequences under Section 506 of IPC, as argued by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent does not arise. Both on facts and on law, there are no grounds to proceed against this petitioner.
8. In the result, the proceedings against this petitioner in C.C.No.871 of 2021 on the file of XV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:20.02.2023 kvs 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL PETITION No.9904 OF 2021 Dt. 20.02.2023 kvs 5