Mere Presence In Second Marriage Ceremony Not Sufficient To Prosecute Them: SC Quashes Criminal Case Against Relatives & Friends

The Court stated that awareness of the subsisting marriage should also be established.

The bench comprising Justice B R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “The appellants herein are being roped in by virtue of Section 34 IPC with the allegation that they had the common intention to commit the offence under Section 494 IPC. To bring home the said charge, the complainant would be required to prima facie prove not only the presence of the accused persons but the overt act or omission of the accused persons in the second marriage ceremony and also establish that such accused were aware about the subsisting marriage of Ms. Lumina(A-1) with the complainant.”

Brief Facts-

The complainant married his wife as per the Christian ceremonies. It is alleged that the wife contracted marriage with another man under the Special Marriage Act, of 1954. It is alleged that the appellants herein are relatives and friends, too are responsible for the offence of bigamy committed as they had the common intention to commit such offence.

The Court noted that the order framing charge is erroneous on the face of the record because no person other than the spouse to the second marriage could have been charged for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC simpliciter.

The Court further noted that it is a peculiar case wherein, the complainant has not sought prosecution of the appellants for the charge of abetting the second marriage under Section 109 IPC.

The Court stated that two of the accused persons were not even alleged to be present at the time of such marriage. Hence, according to the Court, the involvement of these accused for the charge of having a common intention to commit the offence under Section 494 IPC is not established by an iota of evidence.

The Court further noted that there is not even a shred of allegation by the complainant that the accused, acted as witnesses to the second marriage knowing the girl was already married to the complainant. According to the Court in the absence of such an allegation, the prosecution for the charge of having a common intention to commit the offence under Section 494 IPC is unwarranted in the eyes of law.

The Court relied on the decision in Chand Dhawan(Smt) v. Jawahar Lal and Others and quoted, “The allegations in the complaint so far as these respondents are concerned are vague. It cannot be assumed that they had by their presence or otherwise facilitated the solemnisation of a second marriage with the knowledge that the earlier marriage was subsisting.”

According to the Court, allowing the proceedings of the criminal case to be continued against the appellants would tantamount to gross illegality and abuse of the process of the Court.

The Court stated that the order framing charge as well as the order rejecting the revision petition do not stand to scrutiny.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the High Court orders and all subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the appellants.