CASE NAME: Neha Singh v. The State of Telangana
CASE NUMBER: Criminal Petition No. 8289 of 2021
COURT: High Court of Telangana
DATE: 3 February 2026
QUORUM: Justice Tirumala Devi Eada
FACTS
The prosecution stated that the Petitioner is the girl friend of the accused No. 1, who is the husband of the de facto complainant and she, along with accused No.1, harassed the complainant for additional dowry and obtaining a mutual consent divorce, stalked her by fixing an electronic device in her car and threatened her. The Petitioner filed the Criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 6343 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 354D, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
ISSUES
- Whether the allegations as made out in the complaint and charge-sheet disclose any prima facie offence against the petitioner, punishable under Sections 498-A, 354-D, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
- Section 498A, 354D, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER:
The counsel on behalf of the Petitioner (Accused No. 2) contended that there is no material to attract the ingredients of the offences alleged against the Petitioner. Even considering the statement of the de facto complainant, there are no specific allegations against the Petitioner. It was contended that Section 498A and Section 354D do not get attracted, and the ingredients do not point out offences under Section 427 or 506. The counsel relied on the case of Dechamma IM alias Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka and Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3853) and XXX v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine Guj 1532) and prayed for the quashing of proceedings against the Petitioner.
RESPONDENT:
The counsel on behalf of the Respondent contended that the law is well settled with respect to the applicability of Section 498A to the girl friend or concubine. He submitted that Section 506 may be attracted as the allegations prima facie point out the said offence.
ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Court observed that the contents of the complaint point out that the Petitioner and accused No. 1 have harassed the complainant for want of mutual consent to divorce. However, for the same, there was no other allegation against the Petitioner to attract the offences under Section 498A, 354D, 427 and 506 of the IPC. Analysing the case cited by the Petitioners of Dechamma, the court stated that the Petitioner cannot be construed to be a relative of accused No. 1 as per the law laid down. Considering the fact that the Petitioner is a woman, it cannot be alleged that the offence committed by her falls under 354D, as the provision envisages that “any man” who commits the alleged act. Further, it was stated that the allegations are vague and do not point to anything specific to attract the ingredients of Section 427 of the IPC. The court relied on Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka [(2015) 7 SCC 423] and stated that, considering the ingredients of the complaint, no incident causing alarm to the complainant can be made out, and hence Section 506 of the IPC does not get attracted.
JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Court held that the allegations do not make a prima facie case against the Petitioner to attract the offences under Section 498A, 354D, 427 and 506 of the IPC. Hence, the Criminal Petition was allowed, and the proceedings against the Petitioner (Accused No. 2) were quashed.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the present case emphasises the importance of the judiciary in ensuring criminal law is not misused and that individual freedom is protected. It serves as a reminder that while genuine victims must receive strong legal protection, it is just as important to protect the rights of the accused, especially when there is a risk of false or unfounded allegations.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: STUTI ANVI
