Section 498A IPC Not Attracted Against Mother-In-Law When Daughter-In-Law Contracted Marriage During Subsistence Of First Marriage: Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court was considering a quashing application of a woman who was booked in a cruelty case filed by her daughter-in-law.
Justice P.M.Raval, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has quashed a cruelty case against a mother-in-law while observing that there was no question of attraction of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), considering that the marriage of the complainant with the applicant’s son was void as the same was contracted during the subsistence of the complainant’s first marriage.
The High Court was considering an application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the applicant (mother-in-law of the respondent - de facto complainant) seeking quashing of the FIR registered under Sections 498A, 323, 494, 406 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Single Bench of Justice P. M. Raval held, “From the undisputed facts on record, the factum of marriage of the respondent No. 2 herein with one prior to the marriage with the original accused No. 1 on 01.02.2007, came to be dissolved only on 20.11.2007 and thus, as per the settled legal position, the marriage with the present accused No. 1 is null and void and therefore, there is no question of attraction of Section 498A IPC.”
Senior Advocate Harshit Tolia represented the Applicant while Additional Public Prosecutor Rohan Shah represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The marriage of the son of the applicant was solemnised with the de facto complainant in 2007, and they went to London, where they were residing. It was alleged that the present applicant being the mother-in-law the complainant went to stay at London and she abetted her son (original accused) to ill-treat the complainant. It was further alleged that the original accused informed the respondent that he was not interested in the complainant and got married to her with a view to settle in London.
The accused allegedly filed a divorce petition before a Court of London, and the husband and wife were residing separately. It was further alleged that subsequently, the complainant came to know that the accused husband also remarried another girl and thereafter, took divorce from her. It was alleged that the applicant did not inform the complainant about the second marriage of the husband and thereby abetted the offence.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the respondent (original complainant) was earlier married to another man in 2003 and the marriage of the complainant and the original accused (son of the applicant) came to be solemnised in 2007. The Bench thus held that the marriage of the complainant with the applicant’s son was null and void and there was no question of attraction of Section 498A.
The Bench noted, “Further, in Shivcharan LaL Verma and Anr. v. State of M.P., (2007) 15 SCC 369, while dealing in a Criminal Appeal against conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, the Apex Court held that, “alleged second marriage of a person, during the subsistence of a first valid marriage is null and void”, and therefore, the conviction under Section 498A IPC was set aside however, the conviction under Section 306 IPC was confirmed.”
The Bench was of the view that the allegations that the original accused had married subsequently to another girl in the year 2012 and also obtained divorce were insignificant in view of the fact that the complainant herself entered into marriage with the son of the present applicant - original accused in subsistence of her previous marriage.
Dealing with Section 406 of the IPC, which relates to punishment for criminal breach of trust, the Bench held that in the absence of any entrustment alleged in the FIR in question itself, the question of attracting the penal provision under Section 406 did not arise.
The Bench thus came to the conclusion that the proceedings against the present applicants appeared to be manifestly frivolous and instituted with the ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. Thus, exercising the powers vested under Section 482 of the Code, the Bench quashed the FIR registered against the moher-in-law.
Cause Title: A v. State Of Gujarat (Case No.: R/CR.MA/2785/2018)
Appearance
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Harshit Tolia, Advocate Hardikkumar D Rao
Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Rohan Shah, Advocate Jay S Shah