The Orissa High Court recently held that proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) cannot be quashed by a High Court under Section 482 (inherent powers) of the CrPC on the ground that there was no valid marriage.
Single-judge Justice G Satapathy while refusing to quash a case against a man, said that “it would be harsh to the women if the accused-man is allowed to take a plea of absence of valid marriage to escape liability under Section 498A.”
“It is extremely unfair and harsh to a woman, who claims herself to be the wife of a person by entering into a marital relationship and later on becomes a victim of desertion by the said person taking a plea of absence of a valid marriage,” Justice Satapathy observed.”
The bench was hearing a petition filed by a man challenging a March 2014 order of a Magistrate who had issued a process under Section 498A against the appellant.
This order was given after an FIR was lodged against the appellant by a woman, who claimed to be his wife. The woman said that she lived with the appellant in his village for over 80 days. She alleged that he harassed and tortured her both physically and mentally. She even accused his mother of not giving her food and forcing her to starve.
Further, the woman alleged that the appellant was forcing her to bring ₹50,000 from her father.
The Family Court had rejected her plea filed under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)
with a finding that since the marriage was an invalid one, she cannot be termed to be the ‘wife’ of the appellant.
In his order, Justice Satapathy, noted that the allegations made in the FIR and also the statements of the woman, contained all the requisite ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 498A.
“This being the sacred object of offence under Section 498A of IPC, whether a person who enters into a marital relationship be allowed to take the refuge behind a smokescreen to take the plea that since there was no valid marriage, the proceeding under Section 498A of IPC against him is not maintainable. Such pleas will have a deleterious effect on the morality of the women entering into a kind of relationship of marriage with that person,” the bench opined.
While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 (inherent powers to prevent abuse of law) of the CrPC, courts cannot undertake a “hair splitting scrutiny” of materials on record, the judge said.
With these observations, the bench refused to quash the FIR on 29th November.
Case Title: Jaga Sarabu Vs State of Orrisa
