Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: Supreme Court

Merely Participating in a Wedding Ceremony Cannot Attract Section 494 IPC Liability: Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Family Members in Bigamy Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka has quashed proceedings against the family members of an individual accused of bigamy under Sections 420 and 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The judgement focused on the application of Section 494 IPC, which deals with marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife. The court emphasized that this section is applicable only to the individuals who enter into a bigamous marriage and not to those who merely participate in the wedding ceremony.

The case, Criminal Petition No. 7517 of 2017, involved the petitioners (family members of the accused) who were implicated in the second marriage ceremony of the accused. The respondent, Smt. Bharathi, alleged that the petitioners were aware of the ongoing first marriage and still participated in the second marriage ceremony, thereby committing an offence under Sections 420 and 494 IPC.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, in his detailed assessment, clarified that Section 494 IPC pertains solely to the marrying individuals and does not extend to family members who attend the ceremony. The judge observed, "The said provision does not even contemplate the person to whom the husband or wife has married to be prosecuted under Section 494 of IPC. Let alone the father, mother, and sister who had participated in or attended the wedding." The absence of allegations indicating the petitioners' awareness or intention to facilitate an offence under Section 494 IPC was a crucial point in the judgement.

The court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.1115/2016 against the petitioners, who were accused Nos. 4 to 6 in the case. The judge ruled that in the absence of substantial grounds for their implication under Section 494 IPC, the proceedings against them could not be sustained.

Date of Decision: 13 March 2024.

Thimmappa and Others vs Smt. Bharathi

Latest Legal News