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
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.”
Facts and Issues:
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.
Court Assessment:
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.
