The Orissa High Court recently refused to allow a plea to quash the trial court’s order of taking cognizance against the accused under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the grounds that there was no valid marriage.
Section 498A states that if the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects her woman to cruelty or harassment, they shall be punished with three years’ imprisonment.
The court said that proceedings under Section 498A of IPC cannot be quashed by a High Court in exercise of power of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), when uncontroverted allegations appear in the first information report (FIR) and other material, so collected by the investigating agency.
The HC said that the submissions which disclose about marriage between the accused and the victim need to be established during the trial and it would not be proper for a court to undertake hair-splitting scrutiny of materials on record in a proceeding under section 482 of CrPC to conclude that the proceeding under section 498-A of IPC is not maintainable for want of valid marriage. The HC said: “…this would not only encourage harassment of women but also demoralize them.”
The single judge bench of Justice G Satapathy said the law is well settled that a criminal proceeding can be quashed where the basic ingredients of the offences are not constituted/disclosed from a bare reading of the uncontroverted allegations appearing FIR and other materials collected.
Highlighting the objective of enacting offence under Section 498A of IPC, the court stated that it was done to secure the prevention of harassment to a woman from cruelty meted out to her by her husband or his relatives.
But allowing a plea, taken by a person who enters into a marital relationship but later takes refuge behind a smokescreen that there was no valid marriage and claims that the proceeding under section 498A of IPC against him is not maintainable, will have deleterious effect on the morality of the victim, the court held.
“It is also extremely unfair and harsh to a woman who claims herself to be the wife of a person by entering into a marital relationship and later on become a victim of desertion by the said person taking the plea of absence of a valid marriage,” Court said.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by a man to quash the order passed by the Magistrate by which cognizance of offences under Section 498A IPC was taken and process was issued against him.
The allegations against the man were that he married a woman and kept her in his village for three months. During the woman’s such stay, she alleged that she was subjected to torture physically and mentally by her husband and mother-in-law who also assaulted her and she filed a case under Sections 498(A)/323/506/34 IPC r/w 4 of D.P. Act against her husband and in-laws.
However, the family court in proceeding under section 125 of CrPC initiated by the woman for grant of maintenance concluded that the marriage was an invalid one, therefore, the woman could not be termed to be the ‘wife’ of the accused man.
On the basis of this finding of the family court, the accused man contended before the high court that the woman could not maintain a criminal proceeding for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC against him.
Read all the Latest India News here
Comments
0 comment