Telangana High Court
M. Vimala, vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 20 February, 2023
Bench: K.Surender
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
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
2009 LF(SC) 1824
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
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL PETITION No.9904 OF 2021
Dt. 20.02.2023
kvs
