HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6286 of 2009 Dated 8-10-2010 Between: Gracy Milan. …Petitioner. And: State of A.P. rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, W.P.C. C.I.D., Hyderabad represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. …Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6286 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner/A.6 is accused of offences punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.23 of 2008 of C.I.D. Police Station, Hyderabad. 2. Though section 19 (8) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is also added in F.I.R., the police have nothing to do with the said provision of law prior to Magistrate passing an order under Section 19 of that Act in a petition filed under Section 12 of the said Act. 3. In the report, the 2nd respondent/De facto Complainant described A.6 as a relation of her husband A.1. She did not describe A.1’s relationship with A.6. 4. It is the 2nd respondent’s allegation that when she and A.1 were living in Australia after their marriage, A.6 by name Gracy Milan started involving in their personal life and started creating differences. It is further alleged that A.1 developed illegal intimacy with A.6 and started meeting her secretly and talking with her secretly on cell phones and that when she objected, A.1 started beating her. It is further alleged that when the 2nd respondent became pregnant, A.1 and A.6 colluded and forced the 2nd respondent to undergo abortion without knowledge of her parents. It is alleged that due to intervention of A.6 in her life, her life became miserable and that her relationship with A.1 was completely ruined and that on 5-4-2006, A.1 and A.6 hatched a plan to eliminate her and they forcibly tried to give Trika pills to her which she refused to take and that she luckily escaped from their illegal plan of eliminating her. 5. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that a girl friend or a concubine is no relation of the husband. He placed reliance on U. SUVETHA v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE ([1]) and another unreported decision of the Supreme Court dated 15-9-2010 in SUNITA JHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND in Criminal Appeal No.1745 of 2010 for this proposition. 6. Mere sexual relationship is not the relationship contemplated under Section 498-A I.P.C. There must be cognate relationship or relationship by blood or marriage. Even though in the report, the 2nd respondent described A.6 as relation of A.1, she did not elaborate the said relationship. From the elaboration in the report, it can only be understood as a sexual relationship with A.1. It will not attract A.6 into the net of Section 498-A I.P.C. 7. Secondly, the allegation regarding sexual relationship between A.1 and A.6 made A.6 to dominate on A.1 and made life of the 2nd respondent miserable in the hands of A.1, also will not amount to an offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. As per clauses (a) and (b) of explanation to Section 498-A I.P.C., cruelty should be such that the conduct should drive the wife to commit suicide or to cause injury to her limb or damage to her health. The 2nd variety of harassment contemplated under Section 498-A I.P.C. is that mental or physical harassment should be coupled with demand for any valuable security, property or presents i.e., by way of dowry or additional dowry. In the absence of the said motive, mere harassment or cruelty on the part of the husband or his relation will not amount to an offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C., though the said individual acts may attract different penal provisions of law. In the case on hand, taking allegations made by 2nd respondent against the petitoner/A.6 on their face value, it is evident that those allegations do not attract liability under Section 498-A I.P.C. The 2nd respondent did not allege any offences under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against A.6 at all. 8. In that view of the matter, registration of this case against the petitioner/A.6 is nothing but abuse of process of law. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in Crime No.23 of 2008 of C.I.D. Police Station, Hyderabad in so far as the petitioner/A.6 is concerned. __________________________________________ Justice SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dated 8-10-2010. Dvs HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.6286 of 2009 Dated 8-10-2010 [1] 2009 (2) ALD (Crl.) 1 (SC)