B. Rajendran, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused No. 4 against the order of dismissal of the petition in C.M.P. No. 774 of 2008 in C.C. No. 84 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirupattur, Vellore District, dated 10.09.2008, which was filed seeking to discharge him from the charge under Section 498-A IPC

2. The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/ de facto complainant/wife has lodged a criminal complaint against her husband/accused No. 1, father-in-law and mother-in-law/accused Nos. 2 and 3 respectively and petitioner/accused No. 4, who is the friend of accused No. 1, alleging that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. On the basis of the complaint lodged, the first respondent police registered a case in Cr.No. 2 of 2006 and after investigation, a final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirupattur, Vellore District, for the alleged offences under Sections498-A, 406 and 506(ii) IPC against accused Nos. 1 to 3 and accused No. 4 was charged for the offence under Section 498A IPC. Subsequently, the case was taken on file in C.C. No. 84 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirupattur, Vellore District. Alleging that the petitioner/accused No. 4 cannot be charged for the offence under Section 498A IPC, when he is not a relative, but, a friend, has preferred a discharge petition before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Tirupattur, Vellore District, in C.M.P. No. 774 of 2008, but, the same was dismissed by order dated 10.09.2008. Aggrieved against the order passed by the Trial Court, the accused No. 4 has preferred this Criminal Revision Case.

3. Mr. S. Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ accused No. 4 vehemently contended that the Court below has not taken into consideration of the fact that the petitioner is not a relative, but, he is only the friend of accused No. 1. He would further submit that the only allegation made against the accused No. 4 even in the F.I.R. is that the husband of the de facto complainant viz., accused No. 1 was doing business along with the petitioner/accused No. 4/friend of accused No. 1 and in the course of the said business transaction, it is alleged that the husband demanded huge money for investment in the business, but, no where, it is indicated that the petitioner, who is the friend of accused No. 1, neither instigated nor harassed nor demanded dowry from the de facto complainant. He would further point out that Section 498-A IPC will not apply to a third party, especially, to a person, who is not a relative. Here is a case, where the petitioner is only the friend of accused No. 1 and the friend will not come within the purview of Section 498-A IPC. In this connection, learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009(2) MWN (Cr.) 188 (SC), U.Suvetha vs. State by Inspector of Police and another, wherein, the Apex Court has clearly held that even a "girl friend", "concubine", "paramour" or a person, who is living with another lady, whom he has not married, will not come within the purview of "relative" for making out an offence under Section 498-A IPC. The word "relative" brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. He would further add that the essential ingredient for attracting an offence under Section 498-A IPC will include the cruelty, coercing, direct involvement and threatening to meet any unlawful demand for any property and when there is no such specific allegation levelled against the petitioner, the Trial Court ought to have discharged the petitioner from the charge under Section 498-A IPC and hence, the Criminal Revision Case.

4. Mr. V. Arul, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the first respondent would contend that when there is clear indication in the F.I.R. itself regarding the direct involvement of the pet