498A IPC Case Can’t be Quashed Under Section 482 CrPC Merely Because Family Court Called Marriage Invalid In Maintenance Proceedings: Orissa High Court

CASE TITLE:
Jaga Sarabu Vs. State Of Orissa And Another

DATE OF ORDER:
29th November 2022.

JUDGE(S):
Mr. JusticeG. Satapathy.

PARTIES:
Petitioner:Jaga Sarabu.
Respondent: State of Orissa and another.

SUBJECT

In the present case, the Court is dealing with a criminal revision case filed under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Here the Court deals with the fact that whether such case be dismissed merely because there is an absence of the basic ingredients of the offence committed.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 482- Saving of inherent powers of High Court.

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 498(A) - Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.

BRIEF FACTS

• Aruna Sarabu of village Pilka was married to the Jaga Sarabu (the petitioner) who stayed in village Makia around three months ago. Thereafter, he kept her in his village for three months.
• An FIR was lodged before IIC Nabarangpur by Aruna Sarabu against the petitioner on 26 November 2013 alleging that during her stay in his place, she was tortured physically and mentally. She was not provided with food by her husband (the petitioner) while her mother-in-law assaulted her.
• The petitioner asked Aruna Sarabu to bring Rs. 50,000 from her father and threatened to kill her if she does not abides his order. In the same time, he lodged a false case against her on 19 November 2013. The villagers of Makia were well knowledged about this fact and she returned back to her mother to inform about this incident.
• On the basis of the FIR filed by Aruna Sarabu on 26 November 2013, a charge sheet was submitted against the Petitioner for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as “IPC”) read with Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition (hereinafter to be referred as “D.P.”) Act, 1961.
• The learned S.D.J.M of Nabarnagpur took cognizance of the above offences and issued process against the Petitioner after inspecting the materials and the documents produced by the I.O.
• The petitioner felt aggrieved by this above order and approached this Court to quash it.

QUESTIONS RAISED

• Whether the impugned order on the finding of the learned Judge of the Family Court, Nabarangpur is bad in the eye of law for taking cognizance of offence under Section 498-A of the IPC even after the declaration that Aruna Sarabu is not the wife of the petitioner in a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C?
• Whether the criminal trial arising out of the above condition would be an abuse of the process of the Court?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The petitioner counsel alleged that Aruna Sarabu was not the wife of the petitioner by putting forward the judgement passed by the Judge of the Family Court, Nabarangpur. Therefore, she cannot proceed with a criminal proceeding for offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC.
• The learner counsel also stated that in order to continue a criminal proceeding under Section 498(A) of IPC, the legal relationship between the husband and the wife needed to be established.
• The counsel relied on the following decisions-

1. Reema Aggrawal v. Anupam and another.[(2004) 3 SCC 199].
2. Unnikrishnan @ Chandu v. State of Kerala. [(2017) SCC online KER 12064].

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The learned counsel for the State relied upon the decision given in the case of A. Subash Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another. [(2011) 7 SCC 616].
• The respondent counsel also submitted that the law declared in one of the cases mentioned by the petitioner’s counsel [Reema Aggrawal (supra)] is binding on all the Courts.
• It is also submitted that the Petitioner being the husband of Aruna Sarabu, the petitioner cannot invalidate their marriage and thereby misdirect the criminal proceeding for offence under Section 498(A).
• The respondent also stated that the petitioner can be charged under Section 498(A) of IPC on the ground that he contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the earlier marriage.
• Concluding the argument, the State mentioned that the wife of the Petitioner cannot be declared concubine and not the wife of the petitioner by merely relying on the judgement passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court in proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

ANALYSIS OF THE COURT

• On the reference of the case of Unnikrishnan(supra) by the petitioner, the Court said that the present criminal case is based on the claim of the informant who declares herself to be the wife of the Petitioner in the F.I.R. This can be considered independently during the course of trial. The Court held that it would not be proper to come to a conclusion without allowing the wife to disclose the facts about her marriage with the petitioner in the trial.
• The Court submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court while refusing to grant maintenance could have said that the Petitioner failed to establish her relationship with the opponent party as husband and wife. Instead of doing this, he shouldn’t have declared the status of that women and arrived at such a conclusion in the civil proceeding.
• The Court also submitted that even if the law is well settled that a criminal proceeding can be quashed in the absence of the basic ingredients of an offence, the uncontroverted allegations appearing in the F.I.R and the statement of the witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does becomes a valid material to conclude the proceeding under Section 498-A.
• Hence, the Court said that this plea is having a deleterious effect on the morality of the women who is declaring the relationship of marriage with that person.
• It would therefore not be proper for the Court to direct a strict scrutiny of the materials recorded in the proceeding under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to conclude that the criminal proceeding under Section 498-A of the IPC is not maintainable. This would be a harassment to the women and also demoralize them.
• Considering all the above facts, the Court held there are prima facie materials against the Petitioner for the alleged offences and thereby dismissed the CRLMC applied by the petitioner.

CONCLUSION

It is very evident from the present case that Section 498(A) is a very valuable instrument for a women to secure her respect and dignity as a wife. Hence, this provision is emotionally very soft for a women to deal with and thereby, a Court must be very careful while handling such cases keeping in mind the sentiment and emotions of that women.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement