Relationship In Nature Of Marriage Can Attract Cruelty Provision U/S 498A IPC: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a criminal revision petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Sections 498A, 420 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the absence of a formally valid traditional marriage does not, at the threshold, preclude prosecution for cruelty in a relationship in the nature of marriage.
Justice Uday Kumar observed that a “flawless, legally unassailable marriage” cannot be treated as an indispensable prerequisite for invoking Section 498A where the materials disclose a marriage-like domestic arrangement and allegations of cruelty.
The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Sk. Azharuddin @ Akash, who sought quashing of G.R. Case No. 2793 of 2022 arising out of Burdwan Police Station Case No. 587 of 2022, along with the chargesheet submitted against him.
According to the complaint, the petitioner met the complainant, Koyel Begum alias Jaya Roy, in 2019 after her separation from a previous marriage. She alleged that he represented himself as an unmarried orphan and subsequently persuaded her to convert to Islam.
The complainant claimed that the parties underwent a Muslim marriage ceremony on July 2, 2020, and thereafter lived together as husband and wife in a rented house at Dhasor village.
She alleged that she later discovered that the petitioner was already married and that his wife was pregnant. Upon confronting him, she claimed that she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was assaulted and driven out of the shared residence on May 1, 2022.
The complaint was initially filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Bardhaman, and was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
The investigating agency subsequently recorded statements of witnesses, including the landlord, Md. Mirza, who allegedly confirmed that the parties had resided in his premises as spouses. The police also recorded statements of the complainant's parents.
The petitioner surrendered before the trial court and was released on bail. A chargesheet was thereafter filed under Sections 420, 498A and 384 of the IPC.
Petitioner Challenges Maintainability Of 498A Proceedings
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate N.S. Ghosh argued that the prosecution was legally unsustainable in the absence of a valid marriage between the parties.
He submitted that the complainant's earlier marriage was subsisting at the relevant time and that the subsequent matrimonial proceeding filed by her and her previous husband under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act demonstrated that the earlier marriage had not yet been dissolved.
It was argued that the complainant, therefore, lacked the legal capacity to enter into a second marriage and that any such marriage would be void.
The petitioner further contended that the alleged inter-religious marriage was not supported by documentary proof of a valid Muslim marriage or formal conversion. According to him, the absence of a valid marriage destroyed the foundational requirement for Section 498A.
He also argued that the charges of cheating and extortion were consequential to the alleged marital transaction and could not survive independently.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., the petitioner submitted that courts cannot supply words or meanings which the legislature had not enacted.
The State opposed the petition, submitting that the investigation had disclosed sufficient prima facie material to warrant continuation of the prosecution.
State counsel Gurudas Mitra pointed to the statement of the landlord, who allegedly confirmed that the parties had lived together as spouses and that a violent dispute had taken place on May 1, 2022.
The State argued that the factual reality of the shared household could not be defeated by technical objections concerning the formal validity of the marriage.
Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court's recent judgment in Dr. Lokesh B.H., wherein the Court held that Section 498A must be interpreted in a manner that advances its protective and reformative objective.
The State also relied on the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Reema Aggrawal v. Anupam, which held that the expression “husband” under Section 498A could extend to a person who enters into a marital relationship and, under the colour of a proclaimed or feigned status of husband, subjects the woman to cruelty.
The complainant's counsel adopted the State's submissions and argued that the criminal proceedings should be allowed to proceed to trial.
The High Court rejected the petitioner's contention that a formally valid traditional marriage was an absolute prerequisite for prosecution under Section 498A.
Justice Uday Kumar observed that the Supreme Court's interpretation in Dr. Lokesh B.H. had displaced the narrow construction that would restrict the provision only to women in formally valid marriages.
“Though penal statutes are to be given strict construction, however, in applying the same, it is necessary to seek the intention of its maker,” the Court noted, referring to the Supreme Court's reasoning.
The Court held that the protective purpose of Section 498A could not be defeated by technical loopholes where a person had projected himself as a husband and subjected a woman to cruelty within a marriage-like domestic arrangement.
It further observed that the distinction between a formal marriage and a relationship in the nature of marriage, insofar as protection against cruelty is concerned, could not be allowed to defeat the object of preventing domestic violence.
The Court also declined to interfere with the prosecution on the basis of the petitioner's claim that the complainant's earlier marriage was subsisting or that no valid Muslim marriage had taken place.
Justice Kumar held that these were disputed questions of fact which required adjudication during trial.
“Whether opposite party no. 2's prior marriage was subsisting at the relevant time, whether the petitioner practiced active deception by concealing his marital status, whether a valid religious conversion and marriage ceremony took place, and whether the nature of their cohabitation constituted a genuine relationship in the nature of marriage are all contentious factual issues that cannot be resolved on the basis of unilateral affidavits or summary submissions,” the Court observed.
The Court reiterated that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial or to weigh conflicting evidence at the threshold stage.
It noted that the investigating agency had visited the place of occurrence, prepared a sketch map, recorded statements of witnesses and submitted a chargesheet after investigation.
In view of the prima facie material, the Court held that no exceptional ground or manifest illegality had been made out for quashing the proceedings.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Supreme Court's interpretation in Dr. Lokesh B.H. could not apply to acts committed before the judgment was pronounced.
It held that a judicial pronouncement clarifying the true meaning and legislative intent of a statutory provision does not constitute the creation of a new offence.
“Applying these settled principles to ongoing proceedings arising out of prior acts does not amount to impermissible retrospective criminalization, but rather ensures the proper application of existing statutory objectives to ongoing litigations,” the Court observed.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, vacated any interim orders and directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.
Case: SK. AZHARUDDIN @ AKASH -VS- STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.
Case No: CRR 1457 OF 2024