Back
Cannot Be Prosecuted For Under :
A cannot be prosecuted for the offence of under , the has ruled, an FIR against a woman accused of ruining a married couple's relationship. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, hearing a criminal petition filed by Tanushree M, held that a girlfriend or does not qualify as a '' of the husband under the law, and therefore cannot be drawn into criminal proceedings for cruelty against the wife.
The Dispute and the FIR
The case arose from a marital dispute between accused No.1 (the husband) and respondent No.2 (the wife). The wife lodged a complaint at the , alleging that Tanushree M (accused No.4) was her husband's and had criminally intimidated her. The FIR invoked multiple provisions of the BNS, including , and . The trial court took , prompting the petitioner to seek of the FIR under (corresponding to Section 482 CrPC).
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioner, , argued that the only allegation against Tanushree was that she was the of the husband. He contended that under , which punishes cruelty by a husband or his , a cannot be considered a , rendering the prosecution an . The State, represented by High Court Government Pleader , and the complainant wife, represented by , opposed the petition, submitting that allegations of and other offences warranted investigation.
Precedent Applied
The High Court relied heavily on the 's decision in Dechamma I.M. @ Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka and Another (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3853). In that case, the Apex Court had unequivocally held that a girlfriend or a woman with whom a man has had romantic or sexual relations outside marriage cannot be construed as a under (the predecessor to ). The observed:
" would a girlfriend or even a concubine in an etymological sense be a ' '. The word ' ' brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption."
Applying this principle, Justice Nagaprasanna noted:
"In the light of the
elucidated by the Apex Court, if the facts obtaining in the case at hand are observed, a
of the husband – accused No.1 cannot be termed as a
of the husband."
No Ingredients for Other Offences
The court also examined the other offences alleged against the petitioner. It found that the complaint lacked essential ingredients to constitute any of the offences under the BNS or the Dowry Prohibition Act.
"If the other offences are pitted against what is narrated in the complaint, none of the
can be found against the petitioner,"
the court observed.
Final Order and Implications
Allowing the criminal petition, the High Court quashed Crime No.22/2026 pending before the , insofar as the petitioner was concerned. The ruling reinforces that provisions under the BNS are aimed at the husband and his relatives by blood, marriage, or adoption. Extra-marital partners, regardless of their role in marital discord, cannot be prosecuted under . The judgment serves as a check against the misuse of dowry and cruelty laws to implicate third parties.
