The Gujarat High Court has quashed the FIR lodged against a woman accused of having an extramarital relationship with the complainant’s husband, holding that a “girlfriend” does not qualify as a “relative” for the purposes of prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The order was passed by Justice J.C. Doshi in Criminal Misc. Application No. 14331 of 2019 filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of FIR No. II-C.R. No. 126 of 2010 registered at Mahila Police Station, Rajkot City for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 IPC.
Background of the Case
The complainant had alleged that her husband had an affair with the applicant (petitioner) and that the applicant used to visit their home, verbally abuse her, and cause mental and physical cruelty. The FIR stated that the husband had threatened the complainant saying, “I have an affair with a woman… Therefore, you must divorce me, otherwise I shall kill you.” The applicant allegedly also asserted her relationship with the husband and harassed the complainant in public places.
Arguments of the Parties
Advocate Mr. Zalak B. Pipalia, appearing for the applicant, submitted that except the allegation of being in a relationship with the husband of the complainant, no other substantive allegations were made against the petitioner. Referring to the Supreme Court judgments in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police [2009 (6) SCC 757] and Dechamma I.M. @ Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka [2024(0) INSC 972], it was argued that the term “relative” under Section 498A IPC does not include a girlfriend, and that relationship status must stem from blood, marriage, or adoption.
On the other hand, Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Soham Joshi, opposing the petition, submitted that allegations pertaining to offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 IPC were also made in the FIR and that necessary ingredients were found from the FIR.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Justice Doshi noted that the allegations primarily indicated that the petitioner was the alleged girlfriend of the husband and no other familial or legal status was attributed to her. The Court referred to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Dechamma I.M. Koushik, which reiterated the principle laid down in U. Suvetha, stating:
“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.”
The Court further found that essential ingredients constituting offences under Sections 323, 504, and 506(2) IPC were missing in the absence of supporting documentary evidence.
Justice Doshi observed that allowing the petitioner to face the rigmarole of trial under these circumstances would be unwarranted.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the application and quashed FIR No. II-C.R. No.126 of 2010 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, qua the applicant.
