A valid marriage is required between the accused and the victim to attract prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Petitioners in this revision petition are the accused in C.C. No.3247 of 2014 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-III, Thrissur. They are indicted with an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 . They filed Crl.M.P. No.7495/2017 seeking discharge. The learned Magistrate as per the order dated 28.06.2019 dismissed that petition and that is under challenge.

2.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3.The allegations in the final report are the following:

The 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant had been residing together since 05.05.2006. The 2nd petitioner is the mother of the 1st petitioner. While they were residing together, the defacto complainant was subjected to cruelty for various reasons, including pressuring her to bring more money from her parents. While so, on 09.07.2014 at about 12.00 noon, the 1st petitioner manhandled the defacto complainant and caused her bodily infirmities.

4.The learned Magistrate following the principle of law laid down by the Apex Court in Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam and Others [2004 (3) SCC 199] : [2004 (2) KLT 822] held that dehors absence of a valid marriage between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant, a prosecution for the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is legal. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate ordered that the petitioners would be tried for the offence under of the . Resultantly, Crl.M.P. No.7495 of 2017 was dismissed.

5.this court in Unnikrishnan @ Chandu v. State of Kerala [2017 (3) klt 991] considered whether or not the law laid down by the apex court in reema aggarwal (supra) still held the field. the learned single judge noticed that in Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh [jt 2002 (2) sc 641] a three judge bench held that there must be a valid marriage between the accused and the victim to attract a prosecution under section 498a of the ipc. the said decision was followed by a two judge bench of the apex court in U.Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police [2009 (6) scc 757]. when a bench of co-equal strength of the apex court following an earlier three judge bench later took a view different from what was held in reema aggarwal (supra). the law laid down in three judge bench decision has to be followed. accordingly, the learned single judge in unnikrishnan (supra) held that unless there is a valid marriage, no prosecution under section 498a of the ipc is possible. the said view was reiterated by this court in Narayan v. State of Kerala [2023 (5) klt 1144]. in the light of the said principle of law, the view taken by the learned magistrate that the prosecution is valid even if there was no valid marriage is incorrect. therefore, no charge for the offence punishable under section 498a is liable to be framed against the petitioners. accordingly, this revision petition is allowed and on setting aside the impugned order the petitioners are discharged under section 239 of the code.