Amitav K. Gupta, J.:— This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 06.12.2013 of the Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur passed in Cr. Revision no. 235 of 2013 dismissing the revision preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 16.08.2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby the application for discharge of the petitioner was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation is that when the informant went to the house of her husband she found that this petitioner was sleeping with her husband. It is alleged that the petitioner is the second wife. That on the said allegation cognizance has been taken for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. against the petitioner. Learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U. Suvetha v. State by Inspector of Police; (2009) 6 SCC 757 and contented that it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the relative of the husband will not include the girl friend or concubine for attracting the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. It is argued that the informant has stated that the petitioner is the second wife but there is no proof regarding the solemnization of marriage. Hence, in the given circumstances, even if the allegation is presumed to be true then at best the petitioner can be termed as mistress or a girl friend but cannot be categorized as a wife as there is no legal proof for the same. Relying on the aforesaid decision learned counsel has argued that the court below has erred in rejecting the petition for discharge of the petitioner for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that factum of marriage can only be established when the evidence is led. It is submitted that in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner it has been held by the Supreme Court that proof of a legal marriage in the rigid sense as required under civil law is unnecessary for establishing an offence under Section 498A I.P.C. It is submitted that the factum whether the petitioner was married to the informant's husband and whether she is the second wife can only be appreciated when the evidence is led in the court below. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety.
4. Heard. Status report called for from the court below is available. It transpires that out of nine charge-sheeted witnesses six witnesses have been examined and the court below has taken steps for securing the attendance of the rest of the witnesses. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner the Supreme Court has held that if from the pleadings and evidence the court finds that the woman concerned is regarded as wife and not as a mere mistress, she can be considered to be a wife and consequently as the relative of the husband for the purpose of Section 498A IPC and strict proof of a legal marriage as required under civil law is unnecessary. The petitioner can always raise the points in her defence at the appropriate stage when the evidence is marshalled out in the court below and she can also lead evidence in her defence at the appropriate stage of the trial.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion or view on the merit of the case and the discussion is confined to the legality of the order rejecting the petition for discharge filed by the petitioner. The court below shall decide the case on merit without being influenced or prejudiced by any observation made hereinabove.
6. With the said direction this writ stands disposed off.