Second wife who was single at the time of marriage cannot be prosecuted for bigamy under S. 494 IPC: Chhattisgarh HC

Chhattisgarh High Court: In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing the criminal proceedings for offences registered under Sections 498-A¹ and 494² read with Section 34³ of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), a Single Judge Bench of Arvind Kumar Verma, JJ., allowed the petition holding that the petitioner (‘second wife’) could not be prosecuted under Section 494 as only the married person or the erring husband/ wife would be held liable for bigamy.

Background

Upon finding out that her husband had married the second wife without obtaining a divorce, the complainant (‘first wife’) filed a police complaint. However, since the police complaint was not registered, she filed a complaint case against the second wife and three others. On the basis of said complaint, the impugned criminal case was initiated.

The second wife filed an application for deletion of her name as a respondent, but the said application was dismissed. Aggrieved, the second wife filed another application seeking stay on the complaint case but that too was rejected by the Trial Court stating that the impugned criminal case was pending. The second wife filed a revision application, but that was also dismissed. Thus, the present petition was filed.

Issue

Whether a complaint under Section 494 of the IPC was maintainable against the second wife of the erring husband?

Analysis and Decision

The Court noted that in the present case, the second wife was single when she married the first wife’s husband. A single person who married a person whose marriage is subsisting would not be liable under Section 494 of the IPC, but the person whose marriage was subsisting would be liable.

The Court stated that from a bare perusal of Section 494, it was clear that the legislature intended to prosecute the erring husband/wife. Thus, the second wife could not be prosecuted for the offence under Section 494.

Hence, the application was allowed, thereby quashing the proceedings pending against the second wife.

[Dr. Manju Sinha v. Pyari Dadsena, CRMP No. 2197 of 2024, decided on 24-01-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the petitioner: Sunil Sahu

For the respondents: S.P. Sahu and Laxmeen Kashyap, Panel Lawyer

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE