Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

No Person Other Than the Spouse to the Second Marriage Could Have Been Charged for the Offense Under Section 494 IPC Simpliciter – Supreme Court Quashes Bigamy Proceedings

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India quashed the proceedings against non-spouse accused under Section 494 IPC (bigamy) read with Section 34 IPC (common intention), stating that "no person other than the spouse to the second marriage could have been charged for the offense under Section 494 IPC simpliciter."

The appellants, S. Nitheen and others, challenged the rejection of quashing proceedings related to charges of bigamy under Section 494 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The complainant, Reynar Lopez, alleged that his legally wedded wife, Lumina, contracted a second marriage with Saneesh while the first marriage was subsisting, and implicated the appellants as having the common intention to commit this offense.

The court examined the essential ingredients of the offense under Section 494 IPC, emphasizing that "the accused spouse must have contracted the first marriage while the first marriage was subsisting and then contracted a second marriage, both being valid marriages." The court highlighted that "no person other than the spouse to the second marriage could have been charged for the offense under Section 494 IPC simpliciter."

In assessing the evidence, the court noted that for Flory Lopez and Vimal Jacob, "no evidence or allegation to establish their presence or involvement in the second marriage" was found. Regarding S. Nitheen, P.R. Sreejith, and H. Gireesh, the court observed that "the complainant failed to provide evidence that these accused were aware of the subsisting first marriage, making the prosecution under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC unwarranted."

The court referred to the precedent set in Chand Dhawan (Smt) v. Jawahar Lal and Others, which stated that "it cannot be assumed that they had by their presence or otherwise facilitated the solemnization of a second marriage with the knowledge that the earlier marriage was subsisting."

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court’s order and all proceedings against non-spouse appellants, stating that "allowing the proceedings against the appellants would tantamount to gross illegality and abuse of the process of Court." However, the trial against Lumina and Saneesh will continue.

Date of Decision: May 15, 2024

Nitheen & Ors. vs. State of Kerala & Anr.

Similar News