Voices. Verdicts. Vision

Voices. Verdicts. Vision

Bombay High Court quashes 498-A case against Husband’s Friend; Clarifies ‘Relative’ under IPC does not include Friends

Narendra v. State of Maharashtra [Decided on July 29, 2025]

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the friend of a husband in a domestic cruelty case, holding that the term “relative of the husband” under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) does not extend to friends. The decision came in Criminal Application filed by four applicants, including the husband, in-laws, and the husband’s friend.

The case arose from an FIR registered at Chimur Police Station, Chandrapur, under Section 498-A read with Section 34 IPC, alleging cruelty against the complainant by her husband, his parents, and his friend. While the applicants initially sought quashing of the entire FIR, during the hearing, the plea was pressed only on behalf of the friend of the husband.

The complainant alleged that the friend, though not a family member, frequently visited their home and instigated the husband to demand property and a car from her father, further advising him not to cohabit with her if the demands were not met. The High Court noted that while the allegations might be morally questionable, they did not meet the legal threshold under Section 498-A, which applies strictly to the husband or his “relatives.”

Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3853, the Court reiterated that the word “relative” under Section 498-A must be interpreted strictly, encompassing only those connected by blood, marriage, or adoption. The Court further observed that applying the same logic to a friend who lacks any formal familial connection would unjustifiably expand the scope of criminal liability under the provision.

The Bench of Justices M.M. Nerlikar and Anil L. Pansare concluded that a friend of the husband is not a “relative” under Section 498-A, and thus quashed the proceedings against Amol, while dismissing the plea in respect of the husband and in-laws.


Appearances:

Mr. S.A. Mohta, Advocate for applicants.

Mrs. S.S. Jachak, Addl. Public Prosecutor for non-applicant No.1.

Mr. S. Patrikar, Advocate for non-applicant No.2.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *