Continuation of proceedings under Section 498A is not warranted if the marriage has ended prior to the allegations, as no offence is made out.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 03.03.2020 passed in Complaint Case No. 2022 of 2019 whereby and where under, the learned S.D.J.M., Ranchi has found prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code and subsequent orders by which bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner.

3. The case of the complainant in brief is that the petitioner was the second husband of the complainant and even as per the admission made in the complaint, the marriage between the complainant and the petitioner came to an end because of complainant admittedly gave khulla to the petitioner on 11.04.2015; prior to institution of the case. There is allegation that after the complainant gave khulla to the petitioner, the petitioner started torturing the complainant for unwanted reasons.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire allegation made in the complaint, statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation and the statement of the inquiry witnesses are considered to be true in its entirety, still no offence in any law is made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as admitted in paragraph no.4 of the complaint, the relationship of husband and wife between the petitioner and the complainant came to an end on 11.04.2015; so in the absence of any relationship between the petitioner and the complainant, the offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code is not made out. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though in the counter affidavit, the complainant has come up with a plea that the petitioner again solemnized marriage with the complainant on 19.06.2015 but there is no such averment either in the complaint or in the statement on solemn affirmation or in the statement of any of the inquiry witnesses. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is to face trial on the allegations made in the complaint and not for any altogether different case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 on the other hand opposes the prayer and submits that as the petitioner is not keeping the complainant in a decent manner by not transferring at least one of the several houses owned by him, to the name of the complainant, the same amounts to cruelty. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is the admitted case of the complainant that she gave khulla to the petitioner on 11.04.2015. There is no allegation in the complaint or the statement of the complainant on solemn affirmation or the statement of the inquiry witnesses that after giving khulla to the petitioner, the complainant and the petitioner again entered into any matrimony. Though a document has been annexed to the complainant, written apparently in Urdu, which is not the language of this Court or the trial court, but there is no explanation forthcoming, as though Civil Court Rules requires that if a document other than in the language of the court is filed, the same must be accompanied with the translated copy of the document concerned in the language of the court; but why the complainant, who was represented by Advocate, did not take any step for filing any translated copy of the document; which is not in the language of the court nor there is any explanation as to why there is no reference in the complaint about the document wh