ORDER
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. This is a petition to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 133 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kovvur.
2. On a report given by T. Pentamma alleging that the petitioner who is her husband was harassing and subjecting her to cruelty for dowry, police Jangareddygudem P.S. registered a case in Crime No. 136 of 1999 under Section 498-A, I.P.C, and after investigation filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner for an offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C.
3. Contending that Pentamma, the de facto complainant, is not his legally wedded wife, as the charge-sheet itself shows that Bangaramma is his first wife and that she also had filed a similar complaint against him for offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 494 and 323, I.P.C. of Lakkavaram P.S., in Crime No. 11 of 1999, petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of his Court to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 133 of 2000 initiated on the complaint given by Pentamma.
4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since Pentamma is not, and cannot be, the legally wedded wife of the petitioner even as per the averments in the charge-sheet, the provisions of Section 498-A do not apply to petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor relying on V. Edukondalu v. State of A.P., 1988 (1) ALT 1, contends that the woman subjected to cruelty need not necessarily be his legally wedded wife of the man and it is enough if: they lived like man and wife.
5. From the language in which Section 498A, I.P.C. is couched it cannot said that the ‘woman’ subjected to cruelty has to be ‘legally married’ to the man that harassed her, because it speaks of ‘woman’ but not ‘wife’, being subjected to cruelty. Therefore, it can be presumed that the law-makers deliberately avoided employing the word ‘wife’ in Section 498-A, I.P.C. In fact in Edukondalu’s case (supra), relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor, a Division Bench of (his Court held that a man subjecting his mistress to cruelty would be liable for punishment under Section 498-A, I.P.C.)
6. Since, the averments in the charge-sheet show that about five years prior to Pentamma giving the report the petitioner, who is working as a Constable, married the said Pentamma as per the caste custom in the presence of five persons named therein, it is clear that the petitioner underwent a form of marriage with Pentamma about five years prior to the filing of the charge-sheet. Therefore, it is prima facie clear that petitioner and Pentamma lived as husband and wife for five years. Since subjecting even a mistress to cruelty would be an offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. as per Edukondalu’s case (supra), I find no ground to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 133 of 2000 aforesaid. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
