RUPA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.12.2013 of the Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur passed in Cr. Revision no. 235 of 2013 dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 16.08.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby the application for discharge of the petitioner was rejected.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation is that when the informant went to the house of her husband she found that this petitioner was sleeping with her husband. It is alleged that the petitioner is the second wife. That on the said allegation cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. against the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police; (2009) 6 SCC 757 and contented that it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the relative of the husband will not include the girl friend or concubine for attracting the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. It is argued that the informant has stated that the petitioner is the second wife but there is no proof regarding the solemnization of marriage. Hence, in the given circumstances, even if the allegation is presumed to be true then at best the petitioner can be termed as mistress or a girl friend but cannot be categorized as a wife as there is no legal proof for the same. Relying on the aforesaid decision learned counsel has argued that the court below has erred in rejecting the petition for discharge of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State has submitted that factum of marriage can only be established when the evidence is led. It is submitted that in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been held by the Supreme Court that proof of a legal marriage in the rigid sense as required under civil law is unnecessary for establishing an offence under Section 498A I.P.C. It is submitted that the factum whether the petitioner was married to the informant's husband and whether she is the second wife can only be appreciated when the evidence is led in the court below. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety.