JAGA SARABU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner by way of this application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C seeks to quash the order passed on 20/3/2014 by learned S.D.J.M., Nabarangpur in G.R. Case No. 1174 of 2013 by which cognizance of offences was taken and process was issued against the Petitioner.

(2.) Facts as projected in this case in precise are one Aruna Sarabu of village Pilka lodged an FIR on 26/11/2013 before IIC Nabarangpur alleging therein that she had married to the Petitioner Jaga Sarabu of village Makia around three months ago and he kept her in his village Makia for three months. During her such stay for eighty days period, she was subjected to torture physically and mentally as well as she was not provided with food by her husband (Petitioner) and mother-in-law who also assaulted her. On 19/11/2013, her husband (Petitioner) went to police to lodge a false case against her and her husband (Petitioner) was asking to bring Rs.50,000.00 from her father, otherwise he would kill her. The above fact was within the knowledge of villagers Makia and she had come to her mother by concealing herself to inform about these facts.

(3.) In the course of hearing of the CRLMC, Mr. Anirudha Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner by placing the judgment passed by the Judge, Family Court, Nabarangpur in Cr.P. No. 64 of 2016 submits that the learned Judge, Family Court has come to a finding that the O.P. No.2 is not the wife of the Petitioner and thereby, she cannot maintain a criminal proceeding for offence under Sec. 498(A) of IPC. It is also submitted by him that when O.P. No.2 is not the legally married wife of the Petitioner which is already established by the judgment of learned Judge, Family Court, Nabarangpur, the impugned order in this case has no sanctity under law and to attract an offence under Sec. 498(A) of IPC, there must be a legal relationship of husband and wife between the Petitioner and O.P. No.2, but that not being so in this case, the criminal proceeding against the Petitioner is otherwise bad in the eye of law. In order to buttress his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner places reliance upon the decision in the case of Reema Aggrawal Vrs. Anupam and another; (2004) 3 SCC 199 and Unnikrishnan @ Chandu Vrs. State of Kerala; (2017) SCC online KER 12064 and prays to quash the impugned order.