In his order, Justice Satapathy, noted that the allegations made in the FIR and also the statements of the woman, contained all the requisite ingredients for constituting an offence under Section 498A.
The judge emphasised on the objective of Section 498A, which is to secure the prevention of harassment to a woman from cruelty meted out to her by husband or his relatives.
“This being the sacred object of offence under Section 498A of IPC, whether a person who enters into a marital relationship be allowed to take the refuge behind a smokescreen to take the plea that since there was no valid marriage, the proceeding under Section 498A of IPC against him is not maintainable. Such plea will have a deleterious effect on the morality of the women entering into a kind of relationship of marriage with that person,” the bench opined.
While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 (inherent powers to prevent abuse of law) of the CrPC, courts cannot undertake a “hair splitting scrutiny” of materials on record, the judge said.
“To conclude that the proceeding under Section 498A of IPC is not maintainable for want of valid marriage would not only encourage harassment of women but also demoralizes them,” the Court underscored.
With these observations, the bench refused to quash the FIR.
Source: Barandbench
