IMPORTANT POINT
A woman cannot be alleged to have committed offence under Section 354D IPC.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C) seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 in C.C.No.6343 of 2021, on the file of the learned XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354D, 427 and 506 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri Pradyuman Kaistha, learned counsel who argued on behalf of Sri J.Sridhar, learned counsel on record for the petitioner/accused No.2 as well as Sri Jitender Rao Veeramalla, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent No.1-State.

3. The case of prosecution is that the petitioner is a girl friend of the accused No.1 and that she along with accused No.1 harassed the defacto complainant for want of additional dowry, committed stalking by fixing an electronic device in her car and threatened her.

4. Learned petitioner’s counsel submits that accused No.1 is the husband of the de facto complainant and that the petitioner herein is alleged to be a girl friend of accused No.1. He further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner herein is that she along with accused No.1 has harassed the de facto complainant for obtaining mutual consent divorce between accused No.1 and the de facto complainant. He further submitted that there is no material to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioner herein. Even as per the statement of LW1/defacto complainant, there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. The offence under Section 498-A does not get attracted against the petitioner as she is no way related either to the accused No.1 or the de facto complainant. He further submitted that the allegations for the offence under Section 354-D also does not get attracted against accused No.2, who is a lady. Further, the ingredients do not point out any offences under Sections 427 or 506 of IPC. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Dechamma I.M. alias Dechamma Koushik Vs. State of Karnataka and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 3853 and xxx vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2025 SCC Online Guj 1532. He therefore prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the law is well settled with regard to the applicability of Section 498-A to a girl friend or a concubine. He also submitted that the allegation under Section 506 IPC may get attracted against the petitioner herein as the allegations prima facie point out the said offence. He therefore prayed to pass appropriate orders.

6. Perused the record. The contents of the complaint and the recitals of charge sheet point out that the petitioner and accused No.1 have harassed the de facto complainant for want of mutual consent divorce. But for that, there is no other allegation against the petitioner herein. It is stated by LW1/defacto complainant that a GPS device has been fixed in her car by her husband/accused No.1 and that she got it removed by approaching a mechanic. The recitals of charge sheet do not point out anything more than the statement of LW1. Thus, in the circumstances, there are allegations against the petitioner to attract the offences under Sections 498A, 354-D, 427 and 506 of IPC. In this regard, it is relevant to extract Sections 498-A, 354-D, 427 and 506 of IPC as under:—

“Section 498A IPC:- 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 punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 354D IPC:- Stalking:—(1) Any man who-

(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

(ii) monitors the us