Smt Gowramma Vs M S Suma @ Sumithra

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PCR NO.08/2016 AND TAKEN COGNIZANCE TO REGISTER A CRIMINAL CASE IN C.C.NO.917/2018 ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT HIRIYUR FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 109, 494, 498 AND 420 OF IPC AGAINST THESE PETITIONERS AS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, DISCRIMINATORY AND WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶40

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused No.3 to 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 have filed this petition under Section 482 r/w 428 of Cr.P.C, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.917/2018 on the file of Addl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Hiriyur, for the

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:33375 CRL.P No. 3306 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

offence punishable under Sections 420, 494, 498 r/w 109 IPC (arising out of PCR.No.8/2016).

¶47

In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that the marriage of accused No.1 and respondent was solemnized on 17.06.1991. Making several allegations she filed PCR.No.8/2016. Based on her sworn statement, the trial Court has taken cognizance and issued summons against accused Nos.1 to 12. Petitioners does not belong to the family of accused No.1. They are utter strangers. They are innocent of the offences alleged. Complaint against them is not maintainable. Without proper application of mind, the trial Court has proceeded with the matter. The matrimonial dispute between accused No.1 and respondent is tried to be given a colour of criminal offence against the petitioners and hence the petition.

¶48

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:33375 CRL.P No. 3306 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

i) Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. ( Kahkashan Kausar )¹

¶53

ii) Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr., ( Kailshben Mahendrabhai Patel )²

¶54

iii) Sushila and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. ( Sushila )³

¶55

iv) Rajesh Chaddha Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ( Rajesh Chaddha )⁴

¶56

On the other hand learned counsel for

¶57

respondent would submit that during the subsistence of marriage between accused No.1 and respondent, accused No.1 has married accused No.10 on the instigation of other accused. Petitioners are close relatives of accused No.1. When questioned, accused No.1 assaulted respondent and demanded that either she should live with her or else leave

¶58

the house. Accused No.1 had secured ex-parte divorce

¶59

against her. She has applied for recalling the said order. In

¶60

1 AIR 2022 SC 820

¶61

2 2024 SCC Online SC 2621

¶62

3 SLP(Crl)No.270/2022 Dt:16.04.2025

¶63

4 SLP(Crl)No.2353-2354/2019 Dt:13.05.2025

¶64

6 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:33375 CRL.P No. 3306 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

the above facts and circumstances, complaint is filed. The

¶68

trial Court has rightly taken cognizance and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶69

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶70

Thus, petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.3 to 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are seeking quashing of criminal proceedings contending that they are implicated alleging that they attended the alleged second marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.10. They have contended that they do not belong to the family of accused No.1 and in fact they are utter strangers and without any application of mind, the trial Court has proceeded to issue process against them.

¶71

The main allegation from which the other offences are stated to have been committed is punishable under Section 494 IPC i.e., accused No.1 has married accused No.10 during the subsistence of his marriage with

¶72

7 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:33375 CRL.P No. 3306 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

respondent No.2. Section 494 of IPC deals with marrying

¶76

again during the lifetime of husband or wife. It reads as follows:

¶77

"494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife - Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."

¶78

In this regard the order in Crl.P.No.7517/2017

¶79

passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is relevant

¶80

and para Nos.8 to 10 of the said order reads as under:

¶81

"8. A perusal of Section 494 of IPC would indicate that whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries during the life of such husband or wife shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend for seven years. Though there are certain exceptions which have been provided those exceptions would not be attracted in the present case.

¶82

9. What is important for this Court to consider is that in terms of Section 494 of IPC it is only the person who marries during the subsistence and the life time of the earlier spouse and the earlier

¶83

8 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:33375 CRL.P No. 3306 of 2023

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

marriage could be prosecuted and punished for the offences punishable under Section 494 of IPC

¶87

10. The said provision does not even contemplate the person to whom the husband or wife has married to be prosecuted under Section 494 of IPC. Let alone the father, mother and sister who had participated in or attended the wedding. The only allegation made in the complaint at "paragraph 7" is that accused NOs.3 to 6 have knowledge of the marriage of accused Nos.1 and 2 is illegal and despite which they have participated. There is no averment made therein that they were aware of the subsisting marriage between the complainant and accused No.1 or further, there is no allegations made as regards the intention on part of accused Nos.3 to 6 having involved themselves in a offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC or felicitated or abated the said offence "

¶88

As held in the above decision, Section 494 of IPC is attracted only as against the husband or wife who marries for the second time during the subsistence of an earlier marriage and the lifetime of the earlier spouse who can be prosecuted and not any other person. Consequently, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.3 to 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12

¶89

9 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:33375 CRL.P No. 3306 of 2023

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such liable to be quashed and accordingly, the following:

¶93

ORDER

¶94

(i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused

¶95

Nos.3 to 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 under Section 482 r/w 428 Cr.P.C is allowed.

¶96

(ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.917/2018 on the file of Addl.Civil

¶97

Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Hiriyur, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 494, 498 r/w 109 IPC (arising out of PCR.No.8/2016) is hereby quashed.

¶98

(iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of

¶99

this order to the trial Court through e-mail.

¶100

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶101

RR

¶102

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44

Smt Gowramma v. M S Suma @ Sumithra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma v. M S Suma @ Sumithra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Hariprasad Vs State by

Sathisha S B Vs State by Konanakunte Police Station

Mr Sachin Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Praveen Gurumurthy Vs the State

Duregesh R @ Durgesh Vs the State by Dobbespet Police Station

Sri Sangamesh Meti Vs State of Karnataka