Even If Marriage Is Subsequently Declared Technically Invalid, Section 498A IPC Would Still Be Applicable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court held that even if the marriage is subsequently declared technically invalid, Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) would still be applicable.

The Court held thus in a Petition filed by the accused under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).

A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “Pertinently, at that time the marriage had not yet been declared null and void by the Ld. Family Court which was so declared only on 05.05.2022. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot seek any avoidance from the offence under Section 498A IPC, on this ground. Considering the purposive interpretation of the definition of the Husband to cover persons who enter into marital relationships, even if their marriage is subsequently declared technically invalid, Section 498A IPC would still be applicable. The Petitioner cannot seek discharge on this technical ground.”

The Bench reiterated that where the allegations made in the Complaint even if taken on the face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute a case against the accused, the quashing of proceedings would be justified.

The Petitioner appeared in person, while APP Shoaib Haider and Advocate Mahinder Singh appeared for the Respondents.

Case Background

The Respondent-wife married a man in 1991 and two daughters were born out of the said wedlock. She was introduced to the Petitioner-accused, a practicing Advocate by a man when she required some legal advice. Subsequently, she engaged the Petitioner to file a Divorce Petition against her husband. Although the Family Court granted an ex-parte decree of divorce in favour of the Respondent in 2010, she continued to reside with her divorced husband. The Petitioner got married in 1985 and had two sons and one daughter from the said wedlock.

His sons (since discharged) were the remaining Petitioners. The Respondent had lodged a Complaint in 2014 under Sections 376, 379, 420, 406, 494, 323, and 506 of the IPC along with an Application under Section 156(3) of CrPC against the Petitioner. After her divorce, the Respondent had married him in 2007 in Arya Samaj Mandir as per rites and rituals. Since then, they lived together as husband and wife for about 7 years. Thereafter, some matrimonial and property dispute arose between them. However, no allegation of rape was sustained. Seeking quashing of the FIR against him, the Petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “Given that the Section 406 IPC offence in the present FIR is premised on the same allegations of entrustment and misappropriation of jewellery, the acquittal stands as a cogent judicial finding negating the very factual substratum of entrustment, on which the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC, is alleged. … Thus, no offence under Section 406 IPC is made out in the Complaint.”

The Court was of the view that only stating cruelty has been committed by the accused, would not amount to an offence under Section 498A IPC.

“… where allegations in the FIR or complaint are vague and general without specific instances or particulars essential to constitute an offence, such FIRs do not disclose a prima facie case and are liable to be quashed”, it reiterated.

The Court noted that even if the statements in the FIR are taken at their face value, if the essential ingredients of an offence like cruelty under Section 498A IPC are not made out with particularity, quashing is justified to prevent abuse of process.

“The guiding tests in regard to the quashing of the FIR, had been succinctly stated in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 wherein it is observed that “where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; or where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the FIR may be quashed”, it also observed.

Conclusion

The Court further said that there is not an iota of even a prima facie case of cruelty or of harassment of the Complainant by the Petitioner and there is also no element of entrustment made out from the facts alleged by the Respondent in her Complaint.

“Though the Chargesheet has been filed in this Case but as noted above, that in itself cannot be a ground to deny the quashing and to refer the parties to try their luck before the Ld. Trial Court, especially when it is patently made out to be a case of abuse of process of law and is designed to settle other disputes between them. The Chargesheet is thus, liable to be quashed, in view of the aforesaid proposition of law and the facts of this case”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the FIR.

Cause Title- ABC & Ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9635)

Click here to read/download the Judgment