- (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being G. R. Case No.575 of 2004 arising out of Uluberia P.S. Case No.205 of 2004 dated 26.08.2004 under Section 498A /34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners being alleged husband and his relations that one Ratna Paramanik (Das) lodged a false complaint at Uluberia P. S. alleging that petitioner No.3 Sailen Paramanik was her husband and that Sailen and his relations started to torture Ratna on demand of dowry. On the basis of said complaint a specific case being Uluberia P. S. Case No.205 of 2004 dated 26.08.2004 under Section 498A /34 I. P. C. was initiated which resulted in filing of a charge sheet under the same provisions of law.
(3.) IT is the specific case of the petitioners that there was no valid marriage in between informant Ratna and Sailen and as such Ratna was not the legally married wife of Sailen. It is further case that informant Ratna filed an application under Section 125 Cr. P. C. claiming maintenance from Sailen being Misc. Case No.59 of 2005. After contested hearing said case was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Uluberia holding that there was no proof of valid marriage between the parties. Ratna preferred a revisional application being CRR No.2080 of 2009 against said order of rejection of the Misc. Case No.59 of 2005 in this Forum which was also dismissed on contest. It is further submitted that petitioner Sailen Paramanik filed a Civil Suit being Suit No.157 of 2005 praying for declaration that no valid marriage was taken place in between him and Ratna along with other consequential reliefs. It is submitted that after contested hearing said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 19.11.2011 holding that no valid marriage took place between Sailen and Ratna. Mr. Ramkrishna Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner accused persons, submits that the judgment of the Civil Court in Suit No.157 of 2005 was a judgment -in -rem declaring the marital status of the parties and that said judgment is binding upon the criminal courts. In support of his contention he has referred the case of Sayed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and Anr. Vs. State (Delhi Admn.) and Anr., 2009 AIR(SC) 3232 as well as the case of K. G. Premshankar vs. Inspector of Police and another, 2002 AIR(SC) 3372. He next submits that in view of said Civil Court judgment it is palpable that informant Ratna was not a legally married wife of petitioner No.3 Sailen and as such no legal proceeding under Section 498 A I. P. C. can proceed either against Sailen or against his relations being husband and in -laws. In this connection he has referred the judgment of Orissa High Court (State vs. Prasanna Kumar Senapati, 2007 CrLJ 1344) and another judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court (Mahesh Kumar Dhawan vs. State of M. P. and another, 2012 CrLJ 1639). He has also referred the case of Shivcharan Lal Verma and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 15 SCC 369 on this issue.;