The absence of a valid marriage does not exempt an accused from liability under dowry laws if the parties lived together as husband and wife.

JUDGMENT :

RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against order dated order dated 30.04.2024, passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 21, Prayagraj, in Sessions Trial No. 1286 of 2022, arising out of Case Crime No. 122 of 2022, under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Kotwali, District-Prayagraj, whereby the application filed by applicant under Section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge has been rejected.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that impugned order is against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. As per prosecution version, the marriage of deceased has taken place with one Rohit Yadav and that there is no credible evidence that she has obtained divorce from said Rohit Yadav. In fact the deceased has started living with applicant in live-in relationship and no marriage has taken place between deceased and applicant. It was also pointed out that even a period of one year has not been passed since the marriage of deceased with said Rohit Yadav. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that deceased was legally wedded wife of the applicant and thus, no prima facie case under Section 304-B I.P.C. is made out. . It was stated that trial court has not considered the facts in correct perspective and committed error by rejecting application of the applicant.

4. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in the first information report, it has been clearly mentioned that after marriage of deceased with said Rohit Yadav, she was divorced by him and thereafter marriage of deceased with applicant has taken place through court and there are allegations that deceased was harassed by the applicant on account of dowry. Deceased has committed suicide at the premises of applicant. It was submitted that whether the marriage between deceased and applicant was lawful or not, is a question of fact and that can only be examined during trial.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. It is well settled that while considering discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. At this stage, a mini trial cannot be held and the Court can shift and weigh the evidence for limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused is made out or not. Where material placed on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in rejecting application for discharge. The Court is not to hold mini trial by marshalling the evidence.

7. In the instant case, the main contention of the learned counsel for applicant is that earlier the deceased was married with one Rohit Yadav and later on she has started living with applicant in live-in relationship without obtaining divorce from said Rohit Yadav and thus, the deceased is not legally wedded wife of applicant and therefore the provisions of Section 304-B I.P.C. are not attracted against applicant. Perusal of record shows that in the first information report, it was alleged that after sometime of marriage of deceased with Rohit Yadav, applicant has molested her and the deceased was divorced by her husband Rohit Yadav and after that the parents of applicant have told that they would accept her as wife of applicant and marriage of deceased with applicant has taken place through court but later on she was harassed by the applicant and he demanded money from her and caused her death. Thus, there is clear averment in the first information report that marriage has taken place between deceased and applicant. It is not disputed that at the time of incident, she was residing with the applicant. Even, otherwise the question whether deceas