IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

1. Heard Sri Mohammad Zakir and Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anand Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Ms. Harshita, learned AGA for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 4827 of 2016 (Savita Devi Vs. Maan Singh and others) under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Sarai Akil, District Kaushambi pending in the Court of C.J.M. Kaushambi.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the instant complaint case has been filed by the opposite party no. 2 alleging therein that the marriage of applicant no. 1 with the opposite party no. 2 was solemnized on 27.04.2012 and since after the marriage she was discharging her matrimonial obligations up to four years without any dispute. It is further alleged that the applicant no. 1 was already married prior to the marriage of the opposite party no. 2 with the applicant and out of that wedlock there was a child born which is applicant no. 3 herein. It is alleged in the complaint that after four years of marriage the applicant herein started harassing the opposite party no. 2 for demand of dowry and the applicants were not happy with the gifts and dowry given by the father of the opposite party no. 2. When the aforesaid was intimated to the father by the opposite party no. 2 he came and there was a settlement and they continue to live together. Subsequently, it has been alleged that on 17.10.2016 all the opposite parties forcibly taken her in a car and dropped her at village Pure-Ghasiram and told that unless she brings Rs. Two Lacs and a car they will not take her back. It is further alleged that the intimation of such incident was given to the police, when no action was taken the instant complaint case was filed by opposite party no. 2 under section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. Thereafter, the statements of witnesses were recorded under section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. In her statement recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. the opposite party no. 2 has alleged that the applicant no. 2 is the first wife of the applicant no. 1 and she was residing with her in the same house. However, it has been stated that at the time of marriage the applicant no. 1 had misrepresented that his first wife had died. It is further stated that she did not raise any objection and did not file any case for such misrepresentation as she thought that she and the applicant no. 2 will live together as sisters and wives of applicant no. 1. The aforesaid averments have also been supported by the witnesses Dharmraj and Nirmala Devi and both of them had categorically admitted that till four years from the date of marriage i.e. 27.04.2012, there was no dispute and there was no demand of any sought by the applicants herein, however the demands have been raised by the applicants after four years of marriage. Admittedly as per the complaint, the date of marriage is 27.04.2012 and the date when opposite party no. 2 was finally thrown out from the house is 17.09.2016 thereby till the end of the April, 2016 there was no dispute of any kind with regard to the dowry and there was no harassment for dowry. Subsequent thereto the allegations of demand of dowry has been made.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that since from the facts, admittedly the opposite party no. 2 is the second wife of the applicant herein, therefore, she is not competent to maintain the proceedings against the applicant for the offences under sections 498A IPC. So far as the allegations of demand of dowry and torture is concerned i.e. from the facts as alleged there was no demand of dowry or harassment up to four years of marriage and subsequent thereto the allegations have been made with regard to demand of dowry. Since the marriage of opposite party no. 2 with the applicant no. 1 was admittedly a nullity, therefore, neither the offence und