The main legal point established in the judgment is that the complaint or FIR lodged by the second wife for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC would not be tenable based on the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 369.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. Finding conflict with two judgments rendered by the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the matters of Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 369 and Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 the learned Single Judge has referred the matter to the Division Bench on the following stated question:

“Whether the complaint/FIR lodged by the second wife for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. would be tenable or not?”

2. In turn, the Hon’ble Chief Justice has referred the matter to us for answering the aforesaid question formulated by the learned Single Judge and this is how the matter has been placed before us. The afore-stated question arises in the following factual backdrop.

3. The complainant/respondent No. 3 lodged written complaint against one Subhash Sharma and present petitioners alleging that she was married to co-accused Subhash Sharma on 19.07.2018 and it is further allegation of the complainant that the co-accused Subhash Sharma was already married to the petitioner No. 1 herein and immediately after her marriage, the petitioners and co-accused Subhash Sharma started harassing her and treating her with cruelty leading to filing of the written complaint, which was registered on 13.09.2021 for offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against the petitioners and one Subhash Sharma vide Annexure P-2, which is sought to be quashed by the petitioners herein by filing the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. In the present petition, during the course of hearing, the learned Single Judge finding conflict with the decision rendered in the matter of Shivcharan Lal Verma (supra) and Rajinder Singh (supra) has referred the matter to Hon’ble the Chief Justice for answering the above-stated question.

5. It is not in dispute that the offence that has been registered against the present petitioners and against Subhash Sharma only Section 498-A read with Section 34 of I.P.C. Section 498-A of I.P.C. states as under:

“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 wilful 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.

(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.”

6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Shivcharan Lal Verma (supra) has considered the question as to whether the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. would attract when the marriage of the appellant therein with the deceased Mohini (second wife) is null and void, as it has been performed by appellant therein during the lifetime of his first wife, which their Lordships answered holding that since the alleged marriage of the appellant therein with Mohini during the subsistence of a valid marriage with Kalindi is null and void and consequently, proceeded to set aside the conviction of appellant therein for offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and held as under:

“1. This appeal is by the two appellants who have been convicted under Sections 306 and 498A IPC by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for seven years for conviction under Section 306 and three years for conviction under Section 498A. The prosecution alleged that during the lifetime of the first wife Kalindi, Shiv Charan married for the second time, Mohini, but after marriage both Kalindi and Shiv Charan