Andhra Pradesh HC Quashes Section 498A Charges Against Alleged Second Wife, Holds She Is Not a “Relative” Under IPC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an alleged second wife does not qualify as a “relative” of the husband under Section 498A IPC, quashing charges against the petitioner for want of prima facie case.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, on 9 April 2026, quashed criminal proceedings against M. Annapurna Devi, the sixth accused in Calendar Case No. 112 of 2022 pending before the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati. Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy, sitting singly, held that an alleged second wife of an accused does not fall within the meaning of “relative” for the purpose of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and that no prima facie case under Section 498A IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was made out against her. The court found the allegations against the petitioner vague and bald, with no material on record connecting her to the alleged offences.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The second respondent, Nayanapalli Lakshmi Shobha, is the wife of accused No. 1. She reported to the Disha Women Police Station, Tirupati on 16 March 2021 that accused No. 1, his parents (accused Nos. 2 and 3), and his siblings (accused Nos. 4 and 5) had harassed her for dowry and pressured her because she had given birth to two female children. A case in Crime No. 23 of 2021 was registered for offences punishable under Section 498A IPC and Section 494 IPC, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The de facto complainant alleged that accused No. 1 developed intimacy with M. Annapurna Devi — a Dance Teacher employed at a Government Girls High School in Gudlavalleru Mandal, Krishna District — and contracted a second marriage with her without her consent, using the absence of a male child as a pretext. After investigation, the charge sheet in Calendar Case No. 112 of 2022 was filed against all six accused.

The petitioner, M. Annapurna Devi (accused No. 6), moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking to quash the charge sheet as against her. She also filed interlocutory applications seeking dispensation of the certified copy of the charge sheet and an interim stay of proceedings, including her personal appearance.

The Legal Issue: Whether the Alleged Second Wife Is a “Relative”

The central question before Justice Sreenivasa Reddy was whether the petitioner, in her alleged capacity as the second wife of accused No. 1, could be prosecuted under Section 498A IPC, which requires that cruelty be inflicted by the husband or his relatives. A subsidiary question was whether the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 were attracted against her.

Senior counsel Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, appearing for the petitioner, argued that during investigation the police had deleted the offence under Section 494 IPC, leaving only Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act charges. He contended that an alleged second wife is not a relative of accused No. 1 and therefore the ingredients of Section 498A are not satisfied as against her. In his submission, continuing the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.

Counsel for the de facto complainant, Sri D. Purna Chandra Reddy, countered that witnesses had consistently stated the petitioner instigated demands for additional dowry and that her alleged bigamous status with accused No. 1 was a question of fact requiring a full trial. He argued that the non-filing of a complaint under Section 494 IPC did not erase the offence or her involvement in the broader harassment. The State, through the Special Assistant Public Prosecutor, aligned with the de facto complainant's position.

How the Court Reasoned

Justice Sreenivasa Reddy began by reaffirming the settled position on the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. Relying on State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajanlal and Ors. (AIR 1992 SC 604), the court acknowledged that such power must be exercised sparingly and only in the rarest of cases, including where the allegations, even taken entirely at face value, do not prima facie constitute the offence alleged.

The court then set out the essential ingredients of Section 498A IPC: the accused must be the husband or a relative of the husband, the woman must be married, and the conduct must amount to cruelty or harassment linked to dowry demands or grave physical or mental injury. Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 criminalise the actual exchange of dowry and direct or indirect demands for it.

On the question of who qualifies as a “relative,” Justice Sreenivasa Reddy turned to the Supreme Court's exposition in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police (2009) 6 SCC 757. The court noted that in the absence of a statutory definition, “relative” ordinarily includes persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption — such as parents, siblings, spouses, and lineal descendants — but does not extend to an alleged second wife whose very marriage is legally void on account of the subsistence of the first marriage.

The court also drew on Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC 369, where the Supreme Court had observed that prosecution under Section 498A may not be attracted against a person whose marriage with the accused is null and void, the first marriage being subsisting. A coordinate bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Deva Sahayam v. State of A.P. (2022 SCC OnLine AP 1000) had similarly held that a person in an extra-marital relationship, being neither the husband nor a relative of the husband, does not fall within the purview of Section 498A IPC.

Justice Sreenivasa Reddy examined the charge sheet carefully and observed a significant internal inconsistency. While senior counsel for the petitioner had argued that Section 494 IPC was deleted during investigation, a reading of paragraph 10 of the charge sheet showed it was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 6 for offences under Sections 498A and 494 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. However, the Jurisdictional Magistrate did not take cognizance of Section 494 IPC. The court held that the contents of the charge sheet could nonetheless be considered to determine whether the offences were made out against the petitioner.

On the facts, the court found that the de facto complainant's own statement indicated that she and accused No. 1 were still residing together under one roof, with no petition for dissolution of marriage having been filed by either side. In this backdrop, the court found it surprising that the complainant claimed to have learnt of a second marriage. The court reasoned that if accused No. 1 had truly contracted a second marriage, the petitioner herself would arguably be the aggrieved person under Section 494 IPC, having been deceived by concealment of the prior subsisting marriage.

Turning to the specific accusations against the petitioner under Section 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act, Justice Sreenivasa Reddy found nothing beyond vague and bald allegations. There was no material on record to connect the petitioner to the alleged offences. The court held that even accepting all the accusations as true and correct, no prima facie case was made out against her, and the chances of conviction at trial were bleak and remote. Allowing the petitioner to undergo the ordeal of a full trial in these circumstances would itself constitute an abuse of the court's process.

Outcome

The Criminal Petition was allowed. The proceedings in Calendar Case No. 112 of 2022, pending on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati, were quashed as against M. Annapurna Devi (accused No. 6). All miscellaneous petitions pending in the criminal petition were directed to stand closed as a consequence.