Laxman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 12132 MP

                                                             1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                     AT INDORE
                                                          BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)
                                                   ON THE 13th OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

                                           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 12273 of 2022

                                     BETWEEN:-
                                     LAXMAN S/O SHRI PURUSHOTTAM JI PATIDAR,
                                     AGED   ABOUT     34  YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                     AGRICULTURE, R/O GRAM BALODA, TEHSIL
                                     DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                                     (SHRI OMPRAKASH SOLANKI, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                                     PETITIONER)

                                     AND
                           1.        THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH STATION
                                     HOUSE OFFICER THROUGH POLICE STATION
                                     TIRLA, DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                           2.        MAMTA D/O SUNDERLAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT
                                     33 YEARS, GRAM AAHU, TEHSIL & DISTRICT
                                     DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                                     (SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, LEARNED GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE
                                     RESPONDENT NO.1/STATE)
                                     (SHRI ANOPAM CHOUHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
                                     RESPONDENT [R-2]).

                                 This application coming on for admission/orders this day, th e court
                           passed the following:
                                                              ORDER

They are heard.

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Brief facts of the case are that on the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 bearing Crime No.50/2016, an offence under Section 498-A of IPC has been Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 15-09-2022 11:35:16

registered against the petitioner at Police Station - Tirla, District - Dhar.

After due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and charge under Section 498-A of IPC is framed against the petitioner by the trial Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.2 is not a legally wedded wife of the petitioner. There is specific finding of this Court in Criminal Revision No.3416/2018 passed vide order dated 11/12/2018 regarding it and when the respondent No.2 is not a legally wedded wife then Section 498-A of IPC is not attracted. He further submits that in absence of valid marriage, Section 498-A of IPC does not come into operation. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Vs.

Prasanna Kumar Senapati (2007 Cri.L.J.1344) of Orissa High Court and Rajiv Thapar & Ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor [AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 1056.

Learned counsel for the State as well as counsel for the respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that the finding given in the case may not taken as precedent.

Heard and perused the record.

This Court in CRR. No.3416/2018(Laxman S/o Purushottam Ji Patidar Vs. Smt. Mamta D/o Sundarlal Ji(w/o Laxman Ji Patidar) has passed the following :

10. In the case at hand, the respondent / wife stated that she was living with the applicant for a period of six months. However, duration of live-in-relation is not material, because the respondent / wife was already married with one Rakesh s/o Shriram Bhuwan; and no divorce took place with her husband. In these circumstances, if marriage took place between the applicant / husband and respondent / wife then, it was not a valid marriage. Under such circumstances, the period of live in-relation has no concern in the present case and, therefore, Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhar committed an error of law in granting the

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 15-09-2022 11:35:16

relief of maintenance amount to the respondent / wife under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 fairly conceded that the finding of this Court is not challenged anywhere.

It is pertinent to note that the respondent No.2 Mamta Patel and her father Sunderlal Patel specifically stated before the Family Court, Dhar in Case No.109/2016 that Mamta was married with one Rakesh, but she was not living with him and, thereafter, he got married with the petitioner. It is also crystal clear the the respondent No.2 is not a legally wedded wife of the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, Section 498A of IPC does not come into operation. However, FIR lodged by the respondent No.2 bearing Crime No.50/2016, an offence under Section 498- A of IPC as well as the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner/accused are hereby set aside.

With the aforesaid, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.

(RAJENDRA KUMAR (VERMA)) JUDGE pn

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PREETHA NAIR Signing time: 15-09-2022 11:35:16