ORDER : (A. Badharudeen, J.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash Annexure-A1 Final Report and all further proceedings in Crime No.806/2016 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner herein is the accused in the above case. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. I have perused Final Report and also addressed to the legal question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in this matter there was no legal marriage and even the date of marriage itself is not disclosed. 3. Here the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC' hereafter) by the sole accused who is the petitioner herein. As per the prosecution allegations as borne out from the records, the petitioner herein married the defacto complainant at Thuruthiyil Devi Temple, Pappanamcode and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife. During their stay at the matrimonial home, there was persecution at the hands of the accused. Further there was allegation that the accused failed to conduct legal marriage and thereby committed breach of trust. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the instant case, there are no materials collected during investigation to prove that there was a legal marriage in between the petitioner and the defacto complainant as alleged. No marriage certificate also produced, even the date of marriage is not disclosed. The prosecution allegation itself would show that the petitioner herein committed breach of trust by promising to give effect to legal marriage. 5. In the decision reported in Aswin V. Nair (Dr.) V. State of Kerala [2024 KHC Online 611], this Court considered an issue in paragraph Nos. 4 to 9 held as under: “4. While canvasing quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the relationship between the accused and the defacto complainant was a live-in relationship and there is no legal marriage in between them. Accordingly, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC would not attract in the facts of this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed two decisions of this Court viz. Accordingly, it is submitted that the offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC would not attract in the facts of this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed two decisions of this Court viz. Unnikrishnan @ Chandu v. State of Kerala [[ 2017(4) KHC 356 : 2017 (2) KLD 480 : 2017 (3) KLT 991 : 2017 (3) KLJ 918 : ILR 2017 (4) Ker. 822 : 2018 CriLJ 265] and Narayanan v. State of Kerala [ 2023 (6) KHC 427 : 2023 KHC OnLine 651 : 2023 KER 61827 : 2023 (4) KLJ 590 ], in this regard. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor also fairly submitted that, even though crime was registered alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC, the relationship between the accused and the defacto complainant was only live-in relationship and no materials brought in to see any legal marriage between them. 6. In a three Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in Shivcharan Lal Verma and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2002 (2) Crimes 177 SC: JT 2002 (2) SC 641], the Apex Court held as under: For a prosecution under S.498A IPC, there must be a valid marital relationship between the accused and the victim. That is a case where a second wife committed suicide, allegedly due to the acts of cruelty of her husband and the former wife. The victim's marriage with the accused in the said case was void ab initio. 7. Holding so, the Apex Court held that a conviction under Section 498A could not be sustained in such situation. The said ratio has been followed by this Court in Unnikrishnan @ Chandu's case (supra) and Narayanan’s case (supra). 8. On perusal of the statutory wording under Section 498(A) of IPC, it has been provided as under: 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting 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. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting 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 purposes 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, 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.] 9. Thus, it appears that in order to attract an offence punishable under Section 498(A) of IPC, the most essential ingredient is, subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or relative/relatives of the husband. The term ‘husband @ hubby’ means, a married man, woman’s partner in marriage. Thus, marriage is the constituent which takes the women’s partner to the status of her husband. Marriage means a marriage in the eye of law. Thus, without a legal marriage, if a man becomes a woman’s partner, he will not be covered by the term ‘husband’ for the purpose of Section 498(A) of IPC.” 6. Thus it is emphatically clear that when there is no legal marriage the woman's partner did not attain the status of her husband and an offence under Section 498-A of IPC would get attracted only against her husband or relative/relatives of her husband. Therefore, in the absence of a legal marriage as borne out from the records, no offence under Section 498-A of IPC would get attracted against the partner of a woman or against the partner's relatives since the partner without a legal marriage would not occupy the status of husband. Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the 'BNS') is in pari materia to 498-A of IPC and the same reads as under: “85. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty. Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short the 'BNS') is in pari materia to 498-A of IPC and the same reads as under: “85. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting 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. Classification of Offence: Cognizable if information relating to the commission of the offence is given to an officer in charge of a police station by the person aggrieved by the offence or by any person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption or if there is no such relative, by any public servant belonging to such class or category as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf-Non-bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Punishment: Imprisonment for 3 years and fine-Non-compoundable.” 7. Another offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is under Section 406 of IPC, which provides that whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 8. Sections 316 of BNS is corresponding to Sections 405 to 409 of IPC, which reads as under: 316: Criminal breach of trust.-(1) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust. (2) Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. 9. Criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 of IPC and it has been provided as follows: 405. (2) Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. 9. Criminal breach of trust is defined under Section 405 of IPC and it has been provided as follows: 405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust". Thus the essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust are (i) the accused must be entrusted with property or dominion over it and (ii) he must have dishonestly misappropriated the property or converted to his own use or disposes it of in violation of any trust. Thus, the two distinct parts of the offence of criminal breach of trust are (1) the creation of an obligation in relation to the property over which dominion or control by the accused (2) misappropriation in dealing with the property dishonestly, which is contrary to the terms of the obligation created. A reading of the section suggests that the gist of the offence is dishonest conversion to one's own use of another's property. 10. Going by the facts of this case none of the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 406 of IPC as defined under Section 405 of IPC are made out. Having considered the facts of the case as discussed, offences under Sections 406 and 498-A of IPC are not made out prima facie and in such view of the matter, the quashment prayer is liable to succeed. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands allowed. Annexure-A1 Final Report and all further proceedings thereof arose out of Crime No.806/2016 of Karamana Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram against the petitioner/accused stand quashed.