The interpretation of the term 'husband' in Section 498-A of I.P.C. encompasses individuals who assume the position of a husband, emphasizing the legislative intent to prevent harassment to women in marital relationships.

ORDER

1. By this instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the FIR dated 04.06.2020, registered at Crime No. 492/2020 under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

2. Factual matrix of the case shows that petitioner, who was appointed as Constable on 07.10.2015 in the respondent department on compassionate ground after death of his father. A compliant was lodged by complainant/respondent No.4 Sita Ahake that she got married to one Abhishek Yadav in May 2017 and a son was born out of this wed lock. Some dispute occurred with her husband, thereafter her husband Abhishek Yadav went away with their son. Despite search, he could not be found. The petitioner was handed the search warrant of Somil, s/o Abhishek Yadav. The petitioner went alongwith respondent No.4 to Haryana to search for the child and by making false promise of marriage, established physical relationship with her and thereafter refused to marry her. A complaint in this regard was made to Superintendent of Police, Betual, thereafter on 29.01.2020, the petitioner and complainant were married in Arya Samaj Mandir. It was alleged that, after marriage, when she went to live with the petitioner, he and his mother treated her with cruelty and refused to give her the status of wife. On the basis of this complaint, FIR was registered at Crime No.492/2020 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was handed over the search warrant of Somil, s/o Abhishek Yadav, issued by SDM, Betul. During the execution of said search warrant, respondent No.4 contacted him and informed him that Somil is the son of her elder sister. She also informed him that she is unmarried and developed relationship with him and subsequently started pressurizing him for marriage, failing which she threatened to lodge a false complaint against him and also to commit suicide. She thereafter, made a complaint to S.P. Betul. Under such pressure, the petitioner after satisfaction that respondent No.4 is unmarried, as she has executed an affidavit in this regard, performed the marriage with her in Arya Samaj Mandir. It is argued that after performing the marriage, the respondent No.4 continuously demanded money from the petitioner threatening that in case her demand is not fulfilled, she would make complaint with the authorities and get him terminated from the service. During these time, the petitioner got the knowledge that respondent No.4 is already married to Abhishek Yadav and she has executed a false affidavit and he has been forced into marriage on the basis of a false statement and the false affidavit that she is an unmarried lady. He also came to know that one case under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance has been filed by respondent No.4 against her husband Abhishek Yadav and also filed an affidavit dated 17.03.2020 before the Family Court, Betul and admitted therein that she has no physical relationship with the petitioner till the date of filing of the affidavit. It is further stated that as the petitioner refused to fulfill illegal demand of respondent No.4, she made a false complaint against the petitioner, though she had already compromised with the earlier husband Abhishek Yadav and residing with him. A copy of this compromise statement dated 24.02.2020 is on record as Annexure P-4. It is argued that as the first husband of the complainant/respondent No.4 is already living, the second marriage with the petitioner in the Arya Samaj Mandir in itself is void ab initio and the petitioner has also filed an application under Section 12 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before the Family Court, Betul for declaring his marriage as void. This application is also on record as Annexure P-5. It is submitted that without examining the genesis of the complaint, FIR has been registered against the petitioner. It is stated that the entire complaint is false and a fraud has been committed by respondent No.4, who is a habitual blackmailer by