The legislative intent behind the offense under section 498-A of IPC is to prevent harassment to women in marital relationships, and the law should be interpreted with a certain element of realism to avoid allowing individuals to take shelter behind legal technicalities to avoid accountability for cruelty and harassment in marital relationships.

JUDGMENT

G.Satapathy, J. - The Petitioner by way of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C seeks to quash the order passed on 20.03.2014 by learned S.D.J.M., Nabarangpur in G.R. Case No. 1174 of 2013 by which cognizance of offences was taken and process was issued against the Petitioner.

2. Facts as projected in this case in precise are one Aruna Sarabu of village Pilka lodged an FIR on 26.11.2013 before IIC Nabarangpur alleging therein that she had married to the Petitioner Jaga Sarabu of village Makia around three months ago and he kept her in his village Makia for three months. During her such stay for eighty days period, she was subjected to torture physically and mentally as well as she was not provided with food by her husband (Petitioner) and mother-in-law who also assaulted her. On 19.11.2013, her husband (Petitioner) went to police to lodge a false case against her and her husband (Petitioner) was asking to bring Rs.50,000/- from her father, otherwise he would kill her. The above fact was within the knowledge of villagers Makia and she had come to her mother by concealing herself to inform about these facts.

2.1. On the basis of the above F.I.R., Nabarangpur P.S. Case No. 323 dated 26.11.2013 was registered for commission of offences punishable under sections 498(A)/323/506/34 IPC r/w 4 of D.P. Act which was investigated into resulting in submission of charge-sheet against Petitioner and two others. Consequently upon conspectus of materials and documents produced by the I.O. and finding prima facie case, learned S.D.J.M., Nabarnagpur by the impugned order took cognizance of offences under Sections 498(A)/323/506/34 IPC r/w 4 of D.P. Act and issued process against the Petitioner and others. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the Petitioner has approached this Court in this CRLMC to quash the order taking cognizance of offences.

3. In the course of hearing of the CRLMC, Mr. Anirudha Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner by placing the judgment passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nabarangpur in Cr.P. No. 64 of 2016 submits that the learned Judge, Family Court has come to a finding that the O.P. No.2 is not the wife of the Petitioner and thereby, she cannot maintain a criminal proceeding for offence under Section 498(A) of IPC. It is also submitted by him that when O.P. No.2 is not the legally married wife of the Petitioner which is already established by the judgment of learned Judge, Family Court, Nabarangpur, the impugned order in this case has no sanctity under law and to attract an offence under Section 498(A) of IPC, there must be a legal relationship of husband and wife between the Petitioner and O.P. No.2, but that not being so in this case, the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner is otherwise bad in the eye of law. In order to buttress his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner places reliance upon the decision in the case of Reema Aggrawal Vrs. Anupam and another; (2004) 3 SCC 199 and Unnikrishnan @ Chandu Vrs. State of Kerala; (2017) SCC online KER 12064 and prays to quash the impugned order.

3.1. On the contrary, Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the State by relying upon the decision in the case of A.Subash Babu Vrs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another; (2011) 7 SCC 616 submits that the law declared in Reema Aggrawal (supra) is binding on all Courts and the Petitioner being the husband of O.P. No.2 cannot take the plea that the marriage was invalid and thereby the criminal proceeding for offence under section 498(A) is misdirected. It is further submitted that husband contracting second marriage during the subsistence of earlier marriage can be charged for offence under section 498(A) of IPC and merely because a judgment is rendered by learned Judge, Family Court in proceeding under section 125 of Cr.P.C. by itself cannot declare the status of O.P.No.2 as concubine or not the wife of Petitioner and whatever observation passed by the learned Judge, Family Court is on the basis of a proc