IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
Akhilesh Keshari and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Application U/s 482 No. 38288 of 2023
Decided On : 28-03-2024
498-A - Quashing of Proceedings - 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 3/4 D.P. Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 498-A I.P.C., Section 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961 - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 498-A I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, emphasizing the validity of marriage, dowry demands, and the definition of cruelty. The court relied on judgments such as Shivcharan Lal Verma vs. State of Madras and P. Shivkumar vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police to establish the legal principles governing the case.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for quashing the proceedings of a charge-sheet and cognizance order in a case involving allegations under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961. The applicant argued that the marriage with the complainant was null and void, and therefore, the proceedings were illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the proceeding under Section 498-A I.P.C. but maintained the proceeding under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
Issues: Validity of marriage, interpretation of cruelty under Section 498-A I.P.C., and the applicability of Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceeding under Section 498-A I.P.C. was not maintainable as the complainant was not the legally wedded wife of the applicant. However, the court maintained the proceeding under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
Final Decision: The application for quashing the proceedings was partly allowed, quashing the proceeding under Section 498-A I.P.C. but maintaining the proceeding under Section 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act.
JUDGMENT :
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Saurabh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceeding of the charge-sheet dated 06.12.2019 as well as the cognizance order dated 10.01.2020 in Case No. 18876 of 2021 (State of U.P. vs. Akhilesh Keshari and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 05 of 2019, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sonbhadra pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/C.A.W. Robertsganj, Sonbhadra.
3. Facts giving rise to the present case are that opposite party no. 2 had lodged an F.I.R. dated 08.06.2019 under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & 3/4 D.P. Act, 1961 against applicants alleging that she got married to applicant no. 1, six years back and out of their wedlock three children were also borne. However, applicants had started harassing her for dowry demand and subsequent applicants had also beaten her. Police after investigation had submitted charge-sheet dated 01.12.2019 against the applicants under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Section 3/4 D.P. Act and cognizance was also taken on 10.01.2022.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants contends that the impugned proceeding is illegal as opposite party no. 2, claiming herself as the wife of applicant no. 1, lodged the F.I.R. of the impugned proceeding on 08.06.2019 but the applicant got divorced from his first wife on 10.02.2022 therefore opposite party no. 2 was not the legally valid wife of applicant and on the date above F.I.R., hence no offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. as well as Section 3/4 D.P. Act is made out against the applicants. In support of his contention, counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another vs. State of Madras, 2017 (15) SCC 369 in which the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that if the marriage itself is null and void, then prosecution under Section 498-A I.P.C. against the husband is not maintainable at the instance of the alleged wife. Apart from this, counsel for the applicant also placed reliance on the judgment P. Shivkumar and Others vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Criminal Appeal Nos. 1404-1405 of 2012), in which judgment of Shivcharan Lal Verma (supra) was relied upon. It was also submitted by counsel for the applicants, though the two Judges Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Reema Agarwal vs. Anupam and Others (Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2004) had observed that the legitimacy of the marriage for the purpose of Section 498-A and 304B I.P.C. is irrelevant. However, the subsequent judgment of Shivcharan Lal Verma (supra) was delivered by the larger Bench consisting of three Judges. It is established law that subsequent judgment delivered by the larger Bench will prevail over the earlier judgment of the lesser Bench.
5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has relied upon the judgment of Reema Agarwal (supra) and submitted that for the purpose of Section 498-A as well as Section 3/4 of the D.P. Act, strict interpretation regarding the validity of marriage should not be made and liberal consideration should be given to those persons who contracted for marriage and are cohabiting together.
6. After hearing counsel for the parties, it is relevant to mention Section 498-A I.P.C. which is being quoted as under:
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 a fine.
Explanation - For the purpose of this Section “cruelty” means - 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
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 pri....
A second marriage that is null and void cannot attract the provisions of Section 498A IPC, and vague allegations of dowry demand do not sustain criminal proceedings.
Vague allegations in matrimonial disputes cannot sustain criminal prosecution; specificity is required to prevent misuse of legal provisions.
Cruelty and dowry offences – A cursory or plausible view cannot be conclusive proof to determine guilt of an individual under Section 498A and Section 4 of D.P. Act, 1961 – Term “cruelty” is subject ....
No offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. can be made out against a friend of the husband, as the applicant is neither the husband nor a relative of the husband.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.