Section 498-A prosecution is unsustainable where the alleged marriage was void during the complainant’s valid first marriage.

Opposite Party No. 2 alleged that she married the petitioner, Vijay Kumar, on 10 February 2008 according to Hindu rites at Baba Bakhtaur Temple and thereafter faced dowry-related harassment and assault by the petitioner and his family members.

She alleged that, on 12 June 2010, the accused attempted to strangulate her and ousted her from the matrimonial home.

A complaint was consequently filed alleging offences under Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code; the Magistrate recorded her solemn affirmation and enquiry witnesses’ statements and issued process on 18 September 2010.

The petitioner sought discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., contending that no legally valid marriage existed between the parties because the complainant was already married to Dinesh Das, with whom she continued to reside until his death in 2011.

The discharge application was rejected by the Magistrate on 20 August 2016.

The petitioner therefore invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether prosecution under Section 498-A IPC could be maintained against the petitioner where the alleged marriage between him and the complainant was contracted during the subsistence of the complainant’s first marriage and was therefore void.

Whether the Magistrate’s rejection of the petitioner’s application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. warranted interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The Court considered Sections 498-A and 323 IPC, Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. concerning discharge in a complaint case, and Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferring inherent powers on the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It applied the principle that a second marriage solemnized during the subsistence of a valid first marriage is void and that a prosecution under Section 498-A IPC is not sustainable where the complainant’s alleged relationship with the accused does not constitute a legally valid marriage.

The Court relied on Shivcharan Lal Verma & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2007) 15 SCC 369, and P. Sivakumar & Ors. v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1737, which held that conviction under Section 498-A IPC cannot be sustained where the alleged marriage with the accused was contracted during the subsistence of the complainant’s earlier valid marriage.

The Court found that the complainant herself claimed a second marriage with the petitioner while her first marriage to Dinesh Das was subsisting.

The statement of her brother in the Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceeding established, for the purpose of the present proceedings, that she had continued residing with Dinesh Das until his death in 2011 and that no legally effective dissolution of that marriage had been shown.

The alleged agreement purporting to terminate the first marriage had no legal sanctity and was inconsistent with her continued cohabitation with Dinesh Das.

Applying Shivcharan Lal Verma and P. Sivakumar, the Court held that even assuming the temple marriage with the petitioner had occurred, it would have been void.

Consequently, the foundational marital relationship necessary for prosecution under Section 498-A IPC was absent, rendering the continuation of the criminal case an abuse of process.

It held that prosecution under Section 498-A IPC could not legally continue on the basis of a marriage alleged to have been solemnized during the subsistence of the complainant’s first marriage.

Exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court quashed the Magistrate’s order dated 20 August 2016 rejecting discharge, discharged Vijay Kumar from Complaint Case No. 724(C) of 2010, and quashed all consequential criminal proceedings arising from that complaint.