Supreme Court Orders Fresh Investigation in Case of Alleged Property Dispute and Fraud; Transfer Petition Disposed    |     Vague Allegations of Improper Cross-Examination Insufficient for Recalling Witnesses: Supreme Court Upholds High Court Order    |     Honorable Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings Invalidates the Dismissal Based on Identical Allegations: Allahabad HC    |     Supreme Court Orders Fresh Selection for Punjab Laboratory Attendants; Eliminates Rural Area Marks    |     Entire Story of the Prosecution is a Piece of Fabrication: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in High-Profile Kidnapping Case    |     Madras High Court Overstepped in Directing Framing of Charges, Says Supreme Court; Stays Proceedings    |     Foreclosing Right to File Written Statement Without Serving Complaint Too Harsh: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Rash Driving Case; Compensation Reduced Due to Age and Health Factors    |     Prayers for Setting Aside Maintenance Order and Refund Not Maintainable Under Section 25(2) of Domestic Violence Act: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused on Grounds of Parity with Co-Accused and Prolonged Custody    |     Serious allegations of corruption demand thorough investigation Against Karnataka Bar Council Chairman:  Karnataka HC Refuses to Quash FIR    |     Probationers must be heard; a punitive action without inquiry is against natural justice: Punjab & Haryana HC Reinstates Judicial Officer    |     Refining Crude Soybean Oil is a Use of Goods Within the State, Attracting Entry Tax: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Arbitral Awards Cannot Be Overturned for Merely Better Views: Supreme Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeals Over Encroachment Claims Due to Improper Demarcation Report    |     Teasing by Children Cannot Be Considered Grave and Sudden Provocation Under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC: Gauhati High Court Upholds Life Sentence for Man Convicted of Murdering a 7-Year-Old Boy    |     ITC Blocking Under Rule 86A Cannot Exceed Available Balance in Electronic Credit Ledger: Delhi HC    |     Writ under Article 226 not maintainable when alternative remedies are available" – Delhi HC: Delhi HC Dismisses Writ Petition for FIR and Protection    |     Lack of Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Does Not Automatically Vitiate Proceedings: Calcutta HC    |     No Development Without Conveyance: Statutory Rights of Housing Society Prevail: Bombay High Court    |     Pecuniary Jurisdiction Based on Highest Valued Relief in Specific Performance Suit: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Delay in Sale Deed Registration After Full Payment Cannot Justify Denial of Auctioned Property: Andhra Pradesh HC    |     Civil Judge Lacked Jurisdiction to Hear Suit Under Section 92 CPC; District Court is the Competent Forum: Allahabad High Court    |     Children are not only the assets of the parents but also of society: Kerala HC on Protests Involving Minors    |     A cheque issued as security does not represent a legally enforceable debt: Madras HC Acquits Accused in Cheque Bounce Case    |    

Bigamy Case Quashed - Lack of Evidence and Malicious Prosecution: Allahabad High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a case involving allegations of bigamy, stating that there was a "lack of evidence to establish a valid second marriage" and that the case amounted to "malicious prosecution." The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J., sheds light on the importance of protecting innocent individuals from frivolous legal proceedings.

The case in question, Smriti Singh Alias Mausami Singh and 3 Others vs. State of U.P. and Another, revolved around allegations of a second marriage by Smriti Singh, also known as Mausami Singh, while her first marriage was still subsisting. The complainant, Satyam Singh, accused Smriti Singh of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

The High Court's observation highlighted the need for concrete evidence in cases of alleged bigamy, emphasizing that the mere allegation was not enough to establish a valid case. The judgment noted, "So far as the alleged photograph is concerned, this Court is of the view that photograph is not sufficient to prove the factum of marriage, especially when the same are not proved on record in accordance with the Evidence Act."

Additionally, the Court invoked its inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to quash the summoning order and proceedings, asserting that the case amounted to malicious prosecution. The judgment stated, "Impugned summoning order dated 21.04.2022 of this case is not sustainable. This Court under the facts and circumstances of this case feels that it is the solemn duty of the Court to protect apparently an innocent person, not to be subjected to such frivolous prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable allegations and complaint."

This decision by the Allahabad High Court underscores the importance of preventing the abuse of legal proceedings and protecting individuals from undue harassment. It also serves as a reminder of the need for substantial evidence in criminal cases, particularly those involving serious allegations like bigamy.

Legal experts have lauded the judgment as a significant step towards ensuring that the legal system serves justice and does not become a tool for settling personal vendettas. The case serves as a precedent for courts to exercise their inherent powers in favor of innocent individuals facing baseless allegations.

Date of Decision: 19 September 2023

Smriti Singh Alias Mausami Singh And 3 Others   vs State of U.P. and Another             

Similar News