2011 (7) TMI 1024 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the said finding recorded by the High Court can and should be set aside in the present appeal which is filed by the husband? Whether proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 2 for commission of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC should be quashed or not? Held that - When an apparent irregularity is found by this Court in the order passed by the High Court, the Supreme Court cannot ignore substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with the cause pending before it. There is no reason why the relief cannot be and should not be appropriately moulded while disposing of an appeal arising by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. Therefore, that part of the impugned judgment by which the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal code is quashed by the High Court will have to be set aside while disposing the appeal filed by the appellant.For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant fails and therefore the same is hereby dismissed.The impugned Judgment quashing the complaint filed by the respondent no. 2 for alleged commission of offence by the appellant under Section 498A IPC, is hereby set aside and the complaint lodged by the respondent no. 2 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code as well as charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer for the same shall stand restored/revived. Subject to above mentioned direction the appeal stands disposed of.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of taking cognizance of offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC based on a police report.
2. Validity of the complaint under Section 498A IPC.
3. Applicability of state amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. The status of the second wife as an aggrieved person under Sections 494 and 495 IPC.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Taking Cognizance of Offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC Based on a Police Report:

The appellant argued that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC on the basis of the police report because these offences are non-cognizable under the central legislation. However, the State of Andhra Pradesh amended the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, making these offences cognizable. The Supreme Court held that the amendment made by the State Legislature, which received Presidential assent, prevails in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC are cognizable in Andhra Pradesh, and the Magistrate can take cognizance based on a police report.

2. Validity of the Complaint under Section 498A IPC:

The High Court quashed the proceedings under Section 498A IPC on the ground that the second marriage was void, and thus, the complainant was not the wife of the appellant. The Supreme Court reversed this finding, citing the case of *Reema Aggarwal vs. Anupam and others* (2004), which held that a person who enters into a marital arrangement cannot escape liability under Section 498A IPC by claiming the marriage is void. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent is to prevent harassment of women over dowry demands, regardless of the validity of the marriage.

3. Applicability of State Amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure:

The Supreme Court analyzed Article 254 of the Constitution, which deals with inconsistencies between laws made by Parliament and State Legislatures. The Court concluded that the amendment by the Andhra Pradesh Legislature, making Sections 494 and 495 IPC cognizable, prevails in the State due to the Presidential assent. The Court rejected the argument that Section 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires a complaint by an aggrieved person, overrides the state amendment.

4. The Status of the Second Wife as an Aggrieved Person under Sections 494 and 495 IPC:

The Court held that the second wife, who suffers legal injuries due to the concealment of the first marriage, is an "aggrieved person" under Sections 494 and 495 IPC. The Court explained that the term "aggrieved person" should be interpreted broadly to include the second wife, who faces significant social and legal hardships due to the bigamous marriage. The Court emphasized that the object of Section 494 IPC is to enforce monogamy and prevent the social evils associated with bigamy.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant and restored the complaint under Section 498A IPC. The Court upheld the legality of taking cognizance of offences under Sections 494 and 495 IPC based on a police report in Andhra Pradesh, affirmed the status of the second wife as an aggrieved person, and emphasized the applicability of state amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

← Previous Next →