The Aryavarth Express
Agency (New Delhi): The Supreme Court has clarified that charges under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which penalizes bigamy, can only be framed against the spouse who enters into the second marriage. The court stated that the presence of friends and relatives at the second marriage does not imply their common intention to commit bigamy unless the complainant provides prima facie evidence of their involvement and knowledge of the existing marriage.
The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, quashed the criminal proceedings against the relatives and friends of the accused wife. They emphasized that only the spouse to the second marriage could be charged under Section 494 IPC. The court observed, “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 simplicitor. However, this is a curable defect, and the charge can be altered at any stage as per the provisions of Section 216 CrPC.”
In the present case, the complainant, the husband, married the accused wife on April 16, 2007. It was alleged that on August 13, 2010, the accused wife married another man under the Special Marriage Act of 1954 while still being married to the complainant. The complainant also claimed that the friends and family of the accused were responsible for the bigamy due to their common intention to commit the offence.
On May 28, 2018, the Judicial Magistrate First Class directed charges to be framed against the appellants under Section 494 IPC (Marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife) read with Section 34 IPC (common intention) based on the evidence presented by the complainant. The appellants challenged this order through a Criminal Revision Petition in the Sessions Court, which was dismissed on October 26, 2018. They then approached the High Court, seeking to quash the proceedings, but the High Court also rejected their plea. Subsequently, the appellants moved the Supreme Court under special leave to appeal.
The Supreme Court noted that the essential elements of the offence of bigamy, as established in the case of Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan, include: (1) the accused spouse must have contracted the first marriage, (2) the second marriage must have been contracted while the first marriage was subsisting, and (3) both marriages must be valid under the personal law governing the parties.
The court concluded that the trial court’s order framing charges against the appellants was erroneous, as only the spouse involved in the second marriage could be charged under Section 494 IPC. The court stated, “The appellants herein are being roped in by virtue of Section 34 IPC (common intention) with the allegation that they had the common intention to commit the offence under Section 494 IPC. In order 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 of the subsisting marriage of A-1 with the complainant.”
The court further noted that the appellants had not been charged under the offence of abetment of bigamy under Section 109 IPC but rather under common intention under Section 34 IPC. The court emphasized the need to prove the overt act or omission of the accused in the second marriage ceremony and their knowledge of the subsisting marriage.
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and quashed the charges framed against the appellants, except for the main accused. The court relied on the decision in Chand Dhawan (Smt) v. Jawahar Lal and Others, which held that the mere presence of the accused at the second marriage does not constitute facilitating the offence of bigamy.
