Bombay High Court
Narendra S/O Madhukarrao ... vs State Of Mah. Thr. Ps Chimur Dist. ... on 29 July, 2025
Author: Anil L. Pansare
Bench: Anil L. Pansare
2025:BHC-NAG:7367-DB
955 apl 1619.23.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 1619/2023
1. Narendra S/o. Madhukarrao Mule (husband),
aged 34 yrs., Occ. Government Servant-supervisor.
2. Sau. Manjubai S/o. Madhukarrao Mule (mother-in-law),
aged 53 yrs., Occ. Household,
3. Madhukarrao s/o Gopalji Mule (father-in-law),
aged 56 yrs., Occ. Construction,
All 1 to 3 R/o. Plot No.69, E-Block, rattan Nagar,
Ring Road, Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur.
4. Amol S/o. Shankarraoji Chkole,
(friend of applicant No.1),
aged about 32 yrs., Occ. Manager,
R/o. Plot No.54, Mayurpeth, Aaradhana Nagar,
Nagpur, Tq. & Dist. Nagpur.
...APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra, through PSO,
Chimur Police Station, Chimur,
Dist. Chandrapur.
2. Sau. Ashiwani w/o Narendra Mule,
aged about 27 yrs., Occ. Household,
R/o. Khadsangi, Tq. Chimur, Dist.
Chandrapur.
NON-APPLICANTS
955 apl 1619.23.odt
2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S.A. Mohta, Advocate for applicants.
Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Addl. Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1.
Mr. S. Patrikar, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
M. M. NERLIKAR, JJ.
DATE : 29.07.2025
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER: M. M. NERLIKAR, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
parties, heard finally.
3. By this present application, the applicants are seeking
quashment of Regular Criminal Case No. 68/2022 (charge-sheet
No.45/2022) pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Chimur, Dist. Chandrapur arising out of First Information
Report ("FIR") bearing Crime No.188/2022, dated 13.06.2022
registered with Police Station Chimur, Dist. Chandrapur for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A, read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code ("IPC"). The applicant No.1 is husband, applicant
No.2 is mother-in-law and applicant No.3 is father-in-law of non-
955 apl 1619.23.odt
applicant No.2, whereas applicant No-4 is the friend of applicant
No.1.
4. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for applicants
submits that he is not pressing the present application so far as
applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are concerned. However, he has pressed the
application on behalf of applicant No.4 who is the friend of husband
i.e. applicant No.1. Therefore, as the application is not pressed in
respect of applicant Nos. 1, 2 and 3, we dispose of the present
application to the extent of these applicants.
5. The allegations in the FIR against the applicant No.4 is as
under:-
It is alleged that the applicant No.4 is the friend of the
applicant No.1 who used to come at home of applicant No.1 and
instigate applicant No.1. It is further alleged that the instigation was
to the extent that he was insisting non-applicant No.2 to ask her father
to give plot and car to applicant No.1 and if the demand is not
fulfilled, he was convincing applicant No.1 to not cohabit with non-
applicant No.2 and that she should be sent to her parental home.
955 apl 1619.23.odt
These are the allegations which can be gathered from the FIR which is
registered by non-applicant No.2.
6. The learned counsel appearing for applicant No.4 submits
that applicant No.4 is the friend of applicant No.1 and therefore, he
does not fall under the definition of Section 498-A of the IPC and
therefore, the criminal proceedings would not lie against the applicant
No.4. On the other hand, learned APP and learned counsel appearing
for non-applicant No.2 submit that broad interpretation of Section
498-A of the IPC is required to be given and whoever harasses the
wife will have to be considered as a relative of the husband.
7. We have considered rival submissions of the parties. The
moot question before this Court is:-
"whether a friend can be said to be a relative of the
husband ?"
In order to answer the above issue, it will be useful to reproduce
Section 498-A of the IPC as under:-
"498-A. 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
955 apl 1619.23.odt
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
a....
b....."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal
with somewhat identical issue in respect of "girlfriend" of the
husband. In the case of Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma
Koushik Vs. State of Karnataka and another, 2024 SCC Online
SC 3853, in paragraph No.8, it observed as under:-
"8. This Court, in the case of U. Suvetha (supra), had an
occasion to consider a question as to whether the girlfriend or a
woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations
outside of marriage would be a "relative of the husband" for the
purposes of prosecution under Section 498A of IPC.
9. This Court, after considering the earlier judgments of this
Court and the dictionary meaning of a relative, observed thus:-
"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."
10. It could thus be seen that this Court has, in unequivocal
terms, held that a girlfriend or even a woman with whom a man
955 apl 1619.23.odt
has had romantic or sexual relations outside of marriage could
not be construed to be a relative."
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while emphasizing on the
phrase "status" of relative in the definition of Section 498-A,
was pleased to observe the word "relative" brings within its
purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by
"blood or marriage or adoption", therefore, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in unequivocal terms held that a girlfriend or
even a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual
relations outside of marriage could not be construed to be a
relative. Therefore, we have no hesitation in observing that the
same analogy would be applied while interpreting the term
"relative" defined under Section 498-A of the IPC in respect of a
"friend". A friend cannot be said to be a relative as he is neither
a blood relative nor he was having any relation through
marriage or adoption. Therefore, considering above facts and
upon plain reading of Section 498-A of the IPC, we come to the
conclusion that a friend of husband will not fall under the
definition of "relative" of the husband as contemplated under
955 apl 1619.23.odt
Section 498-A of the IPC. In this view of the matter, we are
inclined to allow the application of the applicant No.4 i.e. Amol
S/o. Shankarraoji Chkole in the following terms:-
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) We hereby quash and set aside Regular
Criminal Case No.68/2022 (charge-sheet No.45/2022)
pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Chimur, Dist. Chandrapur arising out of First Information
Report ("FIR") bearing Crime No.188/2022, dated
13.06.2022 registered with Police Station Chimur, Dist.
Chandrapur for the offence punishable under Section
498-A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
("IPC").
10. Application stands disposed of in above terms.
( M. M. NERLIKAR , J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.)
Gohane
Signed by: Mr. J. B. Gohane
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 31/07/2025 10:45:47
