THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7460 OF 2022
O R D E R:
The Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.) by the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.3054 of 2020 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offence under Section 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Sri J.Ashvini Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri S.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and Sri G.Nagaraju, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that respondent No.2 was married to one Mr.Krishna, twenty year ago as per Hindu Customs in the presence of elders. After marriage, respondent No.2 stayed with her husband at laws house at Banjarahills and they were blessed with two sons. After one year of marriage, her husband was not satisfied with any work and started torturing respondent No.2 on petty matters. It is further alleged that her husband and in laws used to scolds her; her husband doesn't give proper maintenance, tortured her for money; that he did not provide proper food also, he used to beat her, scolded in filthy language and treated her like a servant. It is also alleged that her husband used to maintain illegal relationship with another women as she opposed the same, he beat her and ran away from the house without 2 any information. It is also alleged that respondent No.2 was living separately from the year 2003 and the petitioner got introduced to her at her work place and since then they were moving closely. Thereafter, one day, the petitioner proposed respondent No.2 to marry her and that he will take care of her and her children. Believing the same, the petitioner got married to respondent No.2 in a temple and started living peacefully in rented house. At about eight months back, the petitioner's brothers came to the house of respondent No.2, scolded and warned her for maintaining illegal affair with the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came to house scolded respondent No.2, beat her and stated that his wife and parents are not accepting their marriage and started ignoring her. Therefore, respondent No.2 was constrained to file a case in FIR No.827 of 2019 on the file of the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, DD, Hyderabad, against the petitioner herein and his brothers. After investigation, the police deleted the names of petitioner's brothers, who were arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 4 and filed charge sheet. The XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, took cognizance of the same and numbered the case as C.C.No.3054 of 2020.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not the husband of respondent No.2 and one Mr.Krishna was the husband of respondent No.2. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A do not attract the petitioner herein. It is further contended that there is no relationship between petitioner and respondent No.2, as such, they cannot be called as husband and wife. It 3 is also contended that the police have mechanically investigated the case and laid charge sheet against the petitioner. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that the police have duly investigated the case and laid charge sheet in this case. Therefore, it is not a fit case to be quashed.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner suppressed the fact of his first marriage and got married to respondent No.2. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A are attracted against the petitioner. It is also contended that it is not a fit case to be quashed. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the Criminal Petition.
7. To support his contentions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 relied upon the judgment in Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
12.On the question of presumption of marriage, we may usefully refer to a decision of the House of Lords rendered in the case of Lousia Adelaide Piers & Florence A.M. De Kerriguen v. Sir Henry Samuel Piers [(1849) II HLC 331], in which their Lordships observed that the question of validity of a marriage cannot be tried like any other issue of fact independent of presumption. The Court held that law will presume in favour of marriage and such presumption could only be rebutted by strong and satisfactory evidence.
Though, it is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the above citation squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said citation is not relevant to the facts and 1 (2011) 1 SCC 141 4 circumstances of the present case as there is no material on record to show that the petitioner and respondent No.2 are married.
8. On a perusal of entire record, it is evident that entire allegations are made by respondent No.1 against one Mr.Krishna i.e., first husband of respondent No.2. The allegation against the petitioner herein, in the complaint, is that the petitioner and respondent No.2 lived together.
9. As the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 498-A of IPC, it would be appropriate to extract the said Section here under, for kind perusal:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.--Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand."
10. As per the above Section, if any woman is subjected to cruelty by way of physical or mental harassment by the husband or relatives of the husband, they are punishable for the offence under Section 498-A of IPC.
11. In the present case, there is no material before the Court to show that the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.2. Even the contents 5 of the complaint also disclose that one Mr.Krishna is the husband of respondent No.2. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that one Mr.Krishna and respondent No.2 are divorced and that respondent No.2 have married the petitioner so as to attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 498-A of IPC or to prove that the petitioner is the husband of respondent No.2. Further, the complaint does not disclose as to when, where and in which year, the marriage of petitioner and respondent No.2 took place.
12. Though, it is the specific contention of learned counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 obtained divorce from her first husband and married the petitioner herein in a temple, except the argument of respondent No.2 there is no material before this Court to prove the same. Prima-facie, the criminal law was kept into motion basing on the complaint of respondent No.2. Therefore, the complaint is prima facie material available before the police as well as this Court. But the contents of the complaint do not disclose about dissolution of marriage of respondent No.2 with her first husband i.e., one Mr.Krishna or about the marriage of respondent No.2 with the petitioner herein. In the absence of the material, this Court is unable to understand as to why the offence under Section 498-A can be tried against the petitioner, who is not the husband of respondent No.2.
13. Furthermore, it is relevant to extract Section 494 of IPC, which reads as follows:
6
"494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.--Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(Exception) --This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge."
14. As per said Section, the husband or wife during their life time cannot marry another women or men without dissolution of their marriage and it would amount to bigamy and if at all respondent No.2 contends that she married the petitioner, first of all, the police should have registered the case against respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 494 of IPC as there is no dissolution of marriage between respondent No.2 and said Krishna, who is alleged as first husband of respondent No.2.
15. In view of aforesaid discussion and as petitioner is not the husband of respondent No.2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court cannot proceed with trial against petitioner for the offences under Section 498-A and 506 of IPC. Therefore, it is a fit case to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
7
16. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner/accused C.C.No.3054 of 2020 on the file of XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 25.09.2023 tmk 8 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY CRIMINAL PETITION No.7460 OF 2022 Date: 25.09.2023 tmk