Anbalagan Versus State by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station,

Ranipet, Vellore District and Another [2018] 2 MLJ (CRL) 627

Madras Law Journal - Criminal (Case Law)

Equivalent : LNINDORD 2018 MAD 4425

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Pongiappan
Crl.R.C.No. 515 of 2011
17 April 2018

Headnotes

Dowry Harassment—Legally wedded husband— Indian Penal Code , 1860 (Code),

Section 498(A) —Dowry Prohibition Act(Act), Section 4 —Lower Courts convicted
Petitioner under Section 498(A) of Code and Section 4 of Act for harassing defacto
Complainant, hence this revision—Whether allegations levelled against Petitioner
considering him as legally wedded husband of defacto complainant were valid—
Held, as per definition of Section 498(A) of Code and Section 4 of Act, if husband or
relative of husband of women, subjects such women to cruelty in order to get more
dowry, he shall be punished under above said provisions—During cross examination
of defacto Complainant/PW1, she stated that prior to marriage with Petitioner, she
married one person as per rights of Christian marriage, thereafter, she left him within
one month—She admitted that till date on which she gave evidence for this case, said
marriage was not dissolved by competent court—As Petitioner was not legally wedded
husband of defacto complainant, allegations levelled by considering him as her legally
wedded husband was not valid—Judgment passed by Sessions court set aside—
Revision allowed.

Held: As per definition of Section 498(A) Code 1860 and Section 4 of

Act if the husband or relative of the husband of a women, subjects such women to cruelty in
order to get more dowry, he shall be punished under the above said provisions of law. During
the cross examination of the defacto Complainant, who was examined as PW1, she has
specifically stated that prior to the marriage with the present Petitioner, she married one
person as per the rights of the Christian marriage and thereafter, she left him within a period
of one month. Further, she admitted that till the date on which she gave evidence for this
case, the said marriage happened with said person was not dissolved by the competent Court.
Hence, in the eye of law, this Court can come to the conclusion that the present Petitioner is
not legally wedded husband of the defacto Complainant.

[Paras 9 and 10]

Mohit Singh Yaduvanshi

 Anbalagan Versus State by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ranipet, Vellore District and Another
[2018] 2 MLJ (CRL) 627

This Court comes to the conclusion that the present Petitioner being the 2nd husband of the
defacto Complainant, the allegations levelled against him by considering him as a legally
wedded husband of the defacto Complainant herein is not at all valid as per provisions.
Thereby this Revision Petition deserves to be allowed.

[Para 12]

Case Cited/Referred To:

U.Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police (2009) 2 MLJ 1079 (SC) (Considered)

[Para 11]

Advocates Appeared:
P.G. Perumal Pandian, for Petitioner

Ms. T.P.Savitha, Government Advocate(Crl.Side), for Respondent-1

ORDER

1 . Aggrieved over the judgment passed in C.A. No. 2 of 2009 on the file of the Additional
Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.2, Ranipet, Vellore, the petitioner herein has filed this
Revision to set aside the same. The case of the prosecution as follows;

2. On 25.10.2001 one Ganga, the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein got married
with the petitioner herein. At the time of the marriage, the petitioner demanded cash of
Rs.3,00,000/- and 50 sovereigns of gold jewells as dowry from the parents of the defacto
complainant. After solemnisation of the marriage, within a period of six months, the present
petitioner had ill treated his wife/2nd respondent and further demanded 20 sovereigns of gold
and a TATA Sumo car, for which she was assaulted by the petitioner. Due to the harrassment
made by the petitioner, the defacto complainant had left the matrimonial home and lodged a

Mohit Singh Yaduvanshi

 Anbalagan Versus State by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ranipet, Vellore District and Another
[2018] 2 MLJ (CRL) 627

compliant before the the Inspector of police, All Women Police Station, Ranipet, due to
which a case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No. 12 of 2004 for the
offences under Section 498 (A) IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
.

3. After completion of the investigation, final report has been filed before the Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Wallajha and the same was taken on file in C.C. No. 197 of 2004. After
adopting all procedures laid in the code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judicial Magistrate
No.II, Wallajapet had convicted the petitioner for the offences under Section 498
(A) IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced him to
undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and and to pay fine of Rs.400/- for each offence.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A. No. 2 of
2009 before the Additional Sessions Court/Fast Track Court-II, Ranipet, Vellore. After
elaborate enquiry, the learned Additional Sessions Court/Fast Track Court-II, Ranipet,
Vellore had dismissed the appeal, after modifying the earlier sentence as one year rigorous
imprisonment for each offence and also directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
as compensation to the 2nd respondent on or before 31.05.2011. Now without complying
with the order of the lower Appellate Court/ Additional Sessions Court(Fast Track Court-II),
Ranipet, Vellore, the petitioner had filed this Revision before this Court to call for the records
pertaining to C.A. No. 2 of 2009 and to set aside the sentence confirmed by the Additional
Sessions Court/Fast Track Court-II, Ranipet, Vellore.

5. After filing this Revision, Mr.R.Jeyakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner is not
regularly appearing before this Court, hence this Court appointed one Mr.P.G.Perumal
Pandian to represent the case of the petitioner.

6. Today, this Court heard the arguments of Mr.P.G. Perumal Pandian, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
appearing for the first respondent.

7. During the course of arguments, Mr.P.G.Perumal Pandian, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner had contended that the present petitiner is not a husband of the victim girl/2nd
respondent herein. In the evidence adduced by the 2nd respondent herein as PW1 before the

Mohit Singh Yaduvanshi

 Anbalagan Versus State by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ranipet, Vellore District and Another
[2018] 2 MLJ (CRL) 627

trial Court, she herself admitted that at the time of solemnisation of the marriage with the
present petitioner, the earlier marriage which took place with one Russel was not dissolved,
thereby legally we cannot come to the conclusion that the present petitioner is the husband of
the victim girl, thereby, the offences for which the present petitioner was convicted is not
sustainable.

8. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the
marriage happened between one Russel and the defacto complainant was dissolved as per the
agreement made in the presence of some known persons and only after that the marriage took
place with the present petitioner on 25.10.2001. But, the trial Court and the lower Appellate
Court came to the conclusion that the present petitioner alone is the husband of the defacto
complainant and accordingly convicted him for the offences under Section 498

(A) IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act .

9. Before going through the rival submissions made by the both counsels, it is necessary to
see the definition of Section 498 (A)IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act which reads as follows;

“i. 498(A) of IPC: Husband or relative of husband of a woman s ub j ecting her to cruelty :

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine

Explanation —

For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means—

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,

Mohit Singh Yaduvanshi

 Anbalagan Versus State by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ranipet, Vellore District and Another
[2018] 2 MLJ (CRL) 627

limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;

or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

ii. Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act :

4. Penalty for demanding dowry. If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or
bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry be shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but
which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees;

Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for
term of less than six months.”

As per the definition, if the husband or relative of the husband of a women, subjects a such
women to cruelty in order to get more dowry, he shall be punished under the above said
provisions of law.

10. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, that
during the cross examination of the defacto complainant, who was examined as PW1, she has
specifically stated that prior to the marriage with the present petitioner on 25.05.2000, she
married one Russel as per the rights of the Christian marriage and thereafter, she left him
within a period of one month. Further, she admitted that till the date on which she gave
evidence for this case, the said marriage happened with Russel was not dissolved by the
competent Court. So the said evidence apparently shows that the present petitioner is the 2nd
husband. Hence, in the eye of law, we can come to the conclusion that the present petitioner
is not legally wedded husband of the defacto complainant/2nd respondent herein. Therefore,
applying the definition of the offences for which the petitioner was convicted, the present
petitioner is not the husband or relative of the husband.

Mohit Singh Yaduvanshi

 Anbalagan Versus State by The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ranipet, Vellore District and Another
[2018] 2 MLJ (CRL) 627

11. Further, our Hon’ble Apex Court in a case of U.Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police and
Another (2009) 6 SCC 757 : LNIND 2009 SC 1156 : (2009) 2 MLJ
1079 (SC) has considered the similar type of situation and observed as follows;

“That being the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners would have to be accepted that the provisions of
Section 498-A IPC would not be attracted inasmuch as the marriage between Mohit Gupta and Shalini was null and void and Mohit Gupta
could not be construed as a ’husband’ for the purposes of Section 498-A IPC. Clearly, therefore, the charge under
Section 498-A IPC cannot be framed and the Metropolitan Magistrate had correctly declined to frame any charges under Section
4980A IPC”

In view of the above observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that
the said aspect was not considered by both the trial Court as well as first appellate Court.

12. Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the
present petitioner being the 2nd husband of the defacto complainant, the allegations levelled
against him by considering him as a legally wedded husband of the defacto complainant/2nd
respondent herein is not at all valid as per provisions stated supra. Thereby this Revision
Petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the judgment in C.A. No. 2 of 2009, dated
24.01.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Court/Fast Track Court-II, Ranipet is set aside.

Revision allowed.

End of Document

Mohit Singh Yaduvanshi