Offence Of Bigamy U/S 494 IPC Applies Only Against Erring Spouse, Can't Prosecute Family Members: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that an offence under Sections 494, 495 and 496 of the IPC, which pertain to a spouse marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife can be pursued against the erring spouse. However, other members of the family or members of the extended family of the erring spouse, cannot be prosecuted for the offence.

Justice R Nataraj said,

“A perusal of Sections 494, 495 and 496 of IPC makes it clear that those offences can be pursued by a spouse against an erring spouse and the other members of the family or members of the extended family cannot be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 or 496 of IPC. Therefore, pursuing the case against the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495 and 496 of IPC is unwarranted.”

The court was hearing a petition filed by Srinivas Sagar, who along with his family members have been charged under Section 494, 495, 496, 498A and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. These sections deal with offences related to bigamy, concealing prior marriage, cruelty by the husband or his relatives, and cheating.

The complainant, respondent No.2, filed a private complaint under Section 200 of CrPC against accused No.1, who was married to his daughter. The complaint alleged that accused No.1 had already married another woman named Dhanalakshmi, which he had not disclosed to the complainant and his daughter. The complaint also raised issues related to financial matters, where accused No.1 allegedly obtained money for purchasing properties. 

Therefore, it was alleged that all the accused had a common intention to take his daughter in marriage with accused No.1, suppressing the earlier subsisting marriage, which constituted an offence

The trial court referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC, and the FIR was registered by respondent No.1 based on the investigation's findings.

Accused Nos. 1 to 5 approached the High Court and challenged the registration of the FIR and the proceedings initiated against them.

It was argued that the entire complaint would go to show that at the most, the offences under Sections 494, 495 and 496 of IPC are made out only against accused No.1 (husband) and not against the other accused.

Similarly, the complaint related to Section 498A primarily revolved around accused No.1 obtaining money, and this financial aspect did not apply to the other accused. 

They contended that respondent No.2, who was the father-in-law of accused No.1, was not the "aggrieved person" as required under these sections. It was the wife of accused No.1 who was aggrieved but she had not filed a complaint. They claimed that the private complaint was an abuse of the legal process.

The complainant opposed the plea relying on Apex Court judgment in A. Subash Babu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr [(2011) 7 SCC 616] argued that the term "aggrieved person" includes not only the affected spouse but also the spouse's parents or siblings. 

Therefore, respondent No.2, being the father-in-law of accused No.1, had the right to file the complaint. He asserted that all the accused could be prosecuted under Section 34 of the IPC because they had joined hands in suppressing the material fact of accused No.1's prior marriage.

He argued that, as the investigation was still in its early stages, the court should not interfere through Section 482 of CrPC.

The bench noted that the fact that accused No.1 had filed M.C.No.13/2020 to dissolve his marriage with a lady named Dhanalakshmi makes it more than evident that by the time accused No.1 had married the daughter of respondent No.2 on 27.04.2009, he had married Dhanalakshmi.

This prima facie suggested the commission of offences under Sections 494, 495, and 496 of the IPC.

It added,

“The question whether accused No.1 had disclosed his marital status to respondent No.2 and his daughter before the marriage is a fact that has to be established by accused No.1 before the trial Court.”

In the case of offences under Sections 498A and 420, the court ruled that the evidence provided in the complaint was insufficient to involve the other accused at this stage.

“Regarding, Sections 498A and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, except the assertion in the private complaint that accused Nos.2 and 3 had compelled respondent No.2 to part with money to purchase properties in the name of accused No.1, there is no clear evidence and therefore, it is improper at this stage to involve the said accused (family members of husband) in the investigation."

The court clarified that the offences under Sections 494, 495, and 496 of the IPC could only be pursued by a spouse against their erring spouse. Therefore, it was unwarranted to pursue these charges against the other accused.

However, the court granted liberty to the prosecution to prosecute the other accused if a charge sheet was filed against accused No.1 and if affirmative evidence of their involvement was presented during the trial.

“In the event of a charge sheet being filed against accused No.1 and in the event of affirmative evidence being led in before the trial Court about the involvement of the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 420 or Section 34 of IPC, liberty deserves to be reserved in favour of the prosecution to prosecute the other accused by making appropriate application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C.”

Consequently, the court allowed the criminal petitions in part, restricting the investigation to accused No.1 and reserving the option to involve the other accused in the future, if warranted.

Appearance: Advocate Ravi H K for Petitioners

HCGP Rajat Subramanyam for R1.

Advocate Shivprasad Shantanagoudar for R2.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 419

Case Title: Srinivas Sagar B & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7931 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7825 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order