Allahabad High Court: In a criminal revision filed with a prayer to quash the summoning order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in a Complaint Case for offences under Sections 494, 504, 506 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Dr. Gautam Chowdhary, J. while partly allowing the revision, said that it is the solemn duty of the Court to protect apparently an innocent person, not to be subjected to frivolous prosecution on the basis of wholly untenable allegations and complaint. Therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the Court quashed the impugned criminal proceedings against the wife under Section 494 IPC.
Background:
On 05-12-2022 the husband filed a complaint case against the wife with the allegation that earlier she had solemnized marriage with someone else, without obtaining any decree of divorce from any court of law and with him being alive. It was alleged that concealing these facts she has solemnized marriage with him in Arya Samaj Mandir according to Hindu rites and ritual. When it came to the husband’s knowledge, he asked about the same from her, but she threatened her for implicating him in false cases and made a demand of ten lakh rupees. On filing of the said complaint, the Court after recording statements, of complainant and witnesses under Section 200 and 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) summoned the revisionist for the offence under Sections 494, 504, 506 IPC, which is the subject matter of challenge in the present revision
Analysis and Decision:
After taking note of Section 494 of IPC, the Court said that the expression ‘whoever……marries’ must mean ‘whoever…..marries validly’ or ‘whoever……marries and whose marriage is a valid one’. If the marriage is not a valid one, according to law applicable to the parties, no question of its being void by reason of it taking place during the life of the husband or wife of the person marrying arises. If the marriage is not a valid marriage, it is no marriage in the eye of law.
The Court also analysed the ingredients of Section 494 IPC, and Section 7 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Concerning the second marriage of wife, the Court reiterated that the word ‘solemnize’ means, in connection with a marriage, ‘to celebrate the marriage with proper ceremonies and in due form’. Unless the marriage is celebrated or performed with proper ceremonies and due form, it cannot be said to be ‘solemnized’. If the marriage is not a valid marriage, according to the law applicable to the parties, it is not a marriage in the eyes of law. It also reiterated that to constitute an offence under Section 494 IPC, it is necessary that the second marriage should have been celebrated with proper ceremonies and in due form.
The Court said that the ‘Saptapadi’ ceremony under the Hindu Law which is one of the essential ingredients to constitute a valid marriage is lacking in the present case. Even there is no averment regarding ‘Saptapadi’ in the complaint as well as in the statements under Section 200 and 202 CrPC. Hence, the Court said that no prima facie offence is made out against the wife as the allegation of second marriage is a bald allegation without corroborative materials. Therefore, the Court held that as the basic ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 494 of IPC are lacking, hence, no offence under Section 494 IPC is made out against the wife.
The Court further viewed that the criminal proceedings against the wife initiated by the husband under Section 494 IPC is nothing but a malicious prosecution with an ulterior motive, which is clear abuse of process of the Court. Thus, it said that summoning the wife under Section 494 IPC vide impugned order is not sustainable.
Thus, the Court set aside the impugned summoning order and the criminal proceedings against the wife under Section 494 IPC. However, the Court did not quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the wife under Sections 504, 506 IPC.
[Nisha v. State of U.P, 2024 SCC OnLine All 1462, Order dated 25-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Counsel for Revisionist: Advocate Diwakar Mishra, Advocate Gaurav Kumar Srivastava, Advocate Mohd Afroz Khan
Counsel for Opposite Party: Advocate Baleshwar Dayal, Government Advocate Mayank Prakash Rawat
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
