GOPI BEHERA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 26.3.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Paralakhemundi in G.R. Case No. 231 of 2006 framing charge against the Petitioners under Sections 498 -A/109/34 of the IPC is the subject matter of challenge in this revision.

(2.) O .P. No. 2 lodged an FIR with the O.I.C., Paralakhemundi Police Station on the basis of which a case was registered on 14.9.2006 against the Petitioners Under Sections 498 -A, 313, 109/34 of the IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The allegations in the FIR, in a nutshell, are that O.P. No. 2 and Petitioner No. 1 Gopi Behera were in love with each other since six years prior to the lodging of the FIR and having promised to marry her Petitioner No. 1 had sexual relationship with O.P. No. 2 and she got pregnant, but at the instance of the Petitioner her pregnancy was aborted. It is further alleged that Petitioner No. 1 married O.P. No. 2 in a temple and kept her in a rented house in Hyderabad where they were living as husband and wife. It is further alleged that on the instigation of the in -laws of O.P. No. 2 (Petitioner Nos.2 to 4) her husband was treating her with cruelty and demanding dowry. Even after the marriage her pregnancy was again aborted by Petitioner No. 1. He also stopped to provide her food. It is further alleged that in the month of August, 2006, Petitioner No. 1 abandoned O.P. No. 2 in Hyderabad and came back to his house at Paralakhemundi. Shortly thereafter, O.P. No. 2 with the assistance of Ors. came to Paralakhemundi and went to her husband's house where the accused persons abused and assaulted her and drove her out of their house. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons Under Sections 498 -A/109/34 of the IPC. Cognizance was taken and thereafter by the impugned order charge has been framed by learned S.D.J.M. against the accused -Petitioners for the offences as aforesaid.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioners making a reference to the FIR lodged by O.P. No. 2 and her statement recorded Under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure contends that there is no proof of the alleged marriage inasmuch as in the FIR while it is alleged that the marriage between the Petitioner No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 took place in a temple, in her statement Under Sections 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, she has stated that the marriage took place inside the temple by exchange of garlands. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel on the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Sabltri Patra v. State of Orissa and Anr., 1994 1 OrissaLR 543, and it is submitted that the marriage by exchange of garlands is not a valid marriage and in the absence of valid marriage there can be no conviction Under Sections 498 -A of the IPC.