Girlfriend Not a “Relative” Under Section 498A IPC & Limits of Section 482 CrPC: Quashing FIR without Essential Ingredients

Introduction

In Rajniben D/O Gaurishankar Mevani v. State of Gujarat [(2025) Gujarat HC R/CR.MA/14331/2019], the Gujarat High Court considered an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashment of an FIR for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant, Ms. Rajniben Mevani, was alleged to be the paramour of the complainant’s husband and charged as a “relative” under Section 498A. The key issues were:

Whether a girlfriend or live-in partner falls within the statutory definition of “relative of husband” under Section 498A IPC;
Whether allegations of assault (Section 323), intentional insult (Section 504), criminal intimidation (Section 506(2)) and abetment (Section 114) disclose prima facie offences;
The scope of the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings lacking essential ingredients.

The contesting parties were the applicant, represented by Ms. Zalak Pipalia, and the State of Gujarat, represented by the APP Mr. Soham Joshi.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice J.C. Doshi allowed the petition in part, quashing and setting aside the FIR (II-C.R.No.126/2010) as against the applicant. The Court held that:

The term “relative of the husband” in Section 498A IPC must rest on blood, marriage or adoption—and cannot extend to a girlfriend or paramour;
The remaining offences (Sections 323, 504, 506(2) IPC) were alleged in a bare, unspecific manner without documentary proof or sufficiently pleaded ingredients;
Proceeding with a trial would amount to harassment of the applicant absent any genuine prima facie case.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

The Court relied chiefly on two Supreme Court decisions:

U. Suvetha v. State By Inspector Of Police [2009 (6) SCC 757]: Defined “relative” in Section 498A as a status conferred by blood, marriage or adoption, rejecting the notion that a girlfriend could qualify.
Dechamma I.M. @ Dechamma Koushik v. State of Karnataka [2024 (0) INSC 972]: Reiterated and applied the Suvetha ratio, holding unequivocally that romantic or sexual partners outside marriage are not “relatives” for the purposes of 498A.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in two prongs:

Interpretation of “Relative” in Section 498A: Section 498A criminalises cruelty by a husband or “relative of the husband.” By construing “relative” through the lens of etymology and precedent, the Court emphasized that it connotes a legally recognised relationship—either by blood (consanguinity), marriage or adoption. A mere extramarital partner does not fall within this ambit.
Application of Section 482 CrPC: The inherent power to quash allows the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice. Where a complaint or FIR fails to disclose ingredients of any offence, continuing criminal proceedings would only perpetuate harassment. The scanty allegations of assault, insult and intimidation lacked particulars—dates, places, injuries, witnesses—and documentary or medical evidence. Accordingly, no prima facie case was made out.

3. Impact

This decision has significant implications:

Restrictive Interpretation of Section 498A: Clarifies beyond doubt that “relative” excludes romantic or live-in partners, thereby narrowing the scope of Section 498A and guarding against its misuse in matrimonial disputes.
Heightened Threshold under Section 482: Reinforces the High Court’s supervisory role to quash proceedings wherein basic ingredients of charged offences are entirely absent.
Guidance for Trial Courts: Trial courts must scrutinize FIRs and charge-sheets for prima facie validity before issuing process—especially in domestic cruelty matters prone to vexatious litigation.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 498A IPC: Criminalises cruelty by a husband or his “relative” (in-law) toward a married woman. Cruelty includes physical, mental torture or demands for dowry.
Section 482 CrPC: Grants inherent power to High Courts to quash FIRs or criminal proceedings that are oppressive, vexatious or without any legal foundation.
Essential Ingredients: The facts necessary to constitute an offence—e.g., for assault (Section 323) one needs specific allegations of bodily harm, witnesses or medical proof.

Conclusion

The Gujarat High Court’s order in Rajniben Mevani cements the orthodox meaning of “relative” under Section 498A IPC and underscores the protective ambit of Section 482 CrPC against baseless prosecutions. It serves as a salutary reminder that criminal statutes, especially those involving family disputes, demand strict adherence to defined legislative criteria and cannot be stretched to punish non-distinctive relationships. Future litigants and courts will look to this precedent to filter out frivolous FIRs and safeguard individuals from unwarranted criminal liability.