Back
2009(3) Supreme 688
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Koppisetti Subbharao @ Subramaniam — Appellant
versus
State of A.P. — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4496 of 2006)
Decided on : 29-04-2009
1869 (13) MIA 141; 1881 (6) AC 364; 1876 (1) AC 686; L.R.(2) H.L.C. 331 – Relied upon.
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 494 – The mere fact that man and woman live as husband and wife does not at any rate normally give them the status of husband and wife. (Para 8)
Lokhande’s case; AIR 1994 SC 135 – Relied upon.
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 494 – To constitute bigamy under Section 494 IPC, the second marriage had to be a valid marriage duly solemnized – The essential ingredient constituting the offence of Bigamy is the “marrying” again during the lifetime of husband or wife. (Para 8)
(d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 494, 498A and 304B – Ingredients of Section 498A envisage subjecting the woman concerned to cruelty – In section 494 the thrust is mainly “marrying” as against “subjecting of the woman to cruelty” in Section 498A – Likewise, the thrust of the offence under Section 304B is “Dowry Death” – Consequently, the evil sought to be curbed being distinct and separate from the persons committing the offending acts, there could be no impediment in law to liberally construe the words or expressions relating to the persons committing the offence – Therefore not only those validly married but also any one who has undergone some or other form of marriage and thereby assumed for himself the position of husband to live, cohabitate and exercise authority as such husband over another woman can be roped in. (Para 8)
(e) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 494 – Presumption of being husband and wife arises if there is strong evidence by documents and conduct. (Para 9)
(f) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 27 – Wife is the absolute owner of such property which is not included in dowry. (Para 11)
AIR 1985 SC 628 – Relied upon.
(g) Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 2 – Demand made after the marriage is a part of dowry – Property or valuable security so as to constitute ‘dowry’ must, therefore, be given or demanded “as consideration for the marriage.” (Paras 12 and 13)
AIR 1996 SC 67 – Relied upon.
(h) Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 – Section 2 – Any ‘demand’ of money, property or valuable security made from the bride or her parents or other relatives by the bridegroom or his parents or other relatives or vice-versa would fall within the mischief of ‘dowry’ where such demand is not properly referable to any legally recognized claim and is relatable only to the consideration of marriage – Marriage in this context would include a proposed marriage also more particularly where the non-fulfilment of the “demand of dowry” leads to the ugly consequence of the marriage not taking place at all. (Para 15)
(i) Interpretation of Statute – Purposive interpretation – Interpretation must depend on the text and the context – They are the bases of interpretation – One may well say if the text is the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be ignored. (Para 22)
3 Co Rep 7a 76 ER 637; AIR 1955 SC 661; AIR 1990 SC 781; AIR 1996 SC 1963; 2003 (8) Supreme 634; (1987)1 SCC 424; (1949) 2 All ER 155 (CA); (1996)4 SCC 596; (2004)3 SCC 199 – Relied upon.
(j) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Disputed questions of fact being involved, High Court rightly refused to interfere. (Para 25)
Facts of the case :
1. A case was registered against three accused persons including the present appellant for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. Present application was filed before the High Court taking the stand that the complainant was not the legally wedded wife of the appellant as he was already married and, therefore, Section 498-A has no application to the facts of the case.
3. The High Court dismissed the application on the ground that disputed questions of fact are involved.
Finding of the Court :
The High Court was justified in holding that disputed questions of fact are involved and the application under Section 482 of Code has been rightly rejected.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the ‘Code’). The prayer in the petition was to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 440 of 4999 and CC No.325 of 2001 on the file of 3rd Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kakinada.
3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
A case was registered against three accused persons including the present appellant for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). Initially, the presence of A-1 could not be secured and therefore court separated the case against A-1 and proceeded the trial against A-2 and A-3. In the said case A-2 and A-3 were acquitted. Thereafter, the present application was filed before the High Court taking the stand that the complainant was not be the legally wedded wife of the appellant as he was already married and, therefore, Section 498-A has no application to the facts of the case.
The High Court dismissed the application on the ground that disputed questions of fact are involved.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the acquittal of the co-accused persons the proceedings against the appellant should not proceed.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that whether there was valid legal marriage subsisting qua the appellant is a question of fact and, therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing the application under Section 482 of Code.
6. Parties to a marriage tying nuptial knot are supposed to bring about the union of souls. It creates a new relationship of love, affection, care and concern between the husband and wife. According to Hindu Vedic philosophy it is sanskar - a sacrament; one of the sixteen important sacraments essential to be taken during one’s lifetime. There may be physical union as a result of marriage for procreation to perpetuate the lineal progeny for ensuring spiritual salvation and performance of religious rites, but what is essentially contemplated is union of two souls. Marriage is considered to be a junction of three important duties i.e. social, religious and spiritual. A question of intricate complexity arises in this appeal where factual scenario has to be also considered.
7. Stand of the appellant was that it was required to be shown that the victim-woman was the legally married wife of the accused. Since victim claim to have married during the lifetime of the appellant, prosecution has failed to establish that it stood dissolved legally. Prosecution having failed to bring any material record in that regard, Section 498-A has no application.
8. The marriages contracted between Hindus are now statutorily made monogamous. A sanctity has been attributed to the first marriage as being that which was contracted from a sense of duty and not merely for personal gratification. When the fact of celebration of marriage is established it will be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that all the rites and ceremonies to constitute a valid marriage have been gone through. As was said as long as 1869 “when once you get to this, namely, that there was a marriage in fact, there would be a presumption in favour of there being a marriage in law”. (See Inderun Valungypooly v. Ramaswamy1 (1869 (13) MIA 141.) So also where a man and woman have been proved to have lived together as husband and wife, the law will presume, until contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage. (See Sastry Velaider v. Sembicutty2 (1881 (6) AC 364) following De Thoren v. Attorney General3 (1876 (1) AC 686) and Piers v. Piers4 (L.R.(2) H.L.C. 331). Where a marriage is accepted as valid by relations, friends and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
