Family Court's Finding Regarding Previous Marriage Can Be Relied On To Quash Complaint About Bigamy Under Section 494/495 IPC : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that a High Court's decision to allow the criminal proceeding to proceed for offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code - which deal with bigamy - despite the Family Court's finding that the wife did not have a subsisting prior marriage, would constitute an abuse of the process.

The Cout observed reference to the Family Court's conclusive findings will not amount to relying on evidentiary materials which are subject matter of trial.

The observation was made considering that in the present case, the appellant wife and her husband (second respondent) were parties to the decision of the Family Court and no contentious material or disputed issues of evidence arise.

A Bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela Trivedi made the observation in an appeal challenging Gauhati High Court's order dismissing a wife's application seeking quashing of a complaint filed against her by her husband for offences under Sections 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code 18602.

Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offence of marrying again during the life-time of an existing spouse and Section 495 deals with the offence of concealment of the former marriage from the person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted

The Court has observed that between the appellant and her husband, the issue as to whether she had a subsisting marriage on the date on which she entered into a marriage with the second respondent is the subject matter of a conclusive finding of the Principal Judge of the Family Court which has attained finality.

Further, Explanation (b) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984 expressly confers the Family Court with jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of a person. The Act grants a Family Court with the status of a District Court and confers it with jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX of the CrPC, thus enabling to collect evidence to make such a determination.

Thus, the Court has held that relying on the judgement of the Family Court which has jurisdiction to decide the gravamen of the offence alleged in the criminal complaint, would not be same as relying on evidentiary materials that are due for appreciation by the Trial Court, such as the investigation report before it is forwarded to the Magistrate.

The Bench noted that the Family Court's judgement clearly shows that whether (i) the appellant had a prior subsisting marriage with another person; and (ii) the second respondent had obtained a valid divorce was in issue before the Family Court. The finding of fact was that the appellant did not have a subsisting prior marriage when she married him.

The Bench noted that when the Family Court's order was questioned before the Division Bench of the High Court, it dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, meaning that the order of the Family Court continues to hold the field. Yet, the impugned judgement has held that the factum of the subsisting marriage of the appellant is a contentious matter and has declined to quash the criminal complaint against the appellant.

The Court therefore observed that the Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the issue as to whether the appellant had a subsisting prior marriage was a 'highly contentious matter' which has to be tried on the basis of the evidence on the record.

The Court has allowed the wife's appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court, and allowed the petition instituted by the appellant for quashing the complaint is allowed.

The appellant was represented before the Court through Advocate Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Advocate Ibad Mushtaq, Advocate Kanishka Prasad and Advocate Akanksha Rai. The State of Assam was represented through AAG Nalin Kohli.

Case Title: Musst Rehana Begum vs State of Assam & Anr

Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 86

Click here to read/download the judgment