The Supreme Court has ruled that Family Court's finding regarding previous marriage can be a ground to quash a Bigamy FIR under Section-495 IPC by High Court.
The Bench comprising of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Bela Trivedi while dealing with 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 1862, observed that the decision to allow the criminal proceeding to proceed despite the Family Court's finding that the wife didn't have a subsisting prior marriage, would constitute an abuse of the process.
Brief Facts of the Case
The appellant was married in accordance with the tenets of Muslim law. According to the complaint, the second respondent came to know that she was previously married to another person and alleged that during the subsistence of the previous marriage, she married the second respondent by suppressing the fact that she had a subsisting marriage. According to the complaint, the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 495 of the IPC since she concealed the fact that she had a subsisting marriage when she married the second respondent.
The appellant instituted a proceeding under Section 482 of CrPC. The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition by a judgment dated 4 April 2018. The High Court has held that “it is highly disputed” whether the appellant had entered into a marital tie with another person prior to the marriage with the complainant and whether the earlier marriage had ended in a valid divorce. Moreover, the High Court held that the appellant had not come up with a specific case that she was neither married earlier or that there was a divorce. Hence, in the view of the High Court, the allegation in the complaint involves matter of trial and a petition under Section 482 CrPC could not be entertained.
Supreme Court Observation
The Court after hearing Counsels of both the parties and going through Family Court Judgement, noted at the outset that the judgment 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 as between the appellant and the second respondent is that the appellant did not have a subsisting prior marriage when she married him.
The Family Court judgement when challenged before High Court wasn't quashed and the order of the High Court continues to hold the field, the Court pointed. Questioning the HC's decision to not exercise power under Section 482 CrPC, it added:
"The order of the High 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 cited SC decision in M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2021 Latest Caselaw 201 SC wherein a three-judge Bench of this Court analysed the precedent of this Court and culled out the relevant principles that govern the law on quashing of a first information report4 under Section 482 of the CrPC.
The parameters for quashing an FIR have been laid down in State of Haryana & Ors Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors, 1990 Latest Caselaw 365 SC by a two-judge Bench of this Court, the Court mentioned.
In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Golconda Linga Swamy And Anr, 2004 Latest Caselaw 372 SC, a two-judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR.
The Court went onto note that the precedent of this Court clarifies that in certain circumstances, the High Court is entitled to consider other materials before exercising its powers of quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC.
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. Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act 1984 grants a Family Court with the status of a District Court and Section 7(2) 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, the Court opined.
Therefore, the Court further said 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.
An analogous factual matrix came up for determination before this Court in P S Rajya v. State of Bihar8 . This Court quashed an FIR against an accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 by noticing that the accused had been exonerated on an identical charge in the relevant departmental proceedings in light of a report submitted by the Central Vigilance Commission and concurred by the Union Public Service Commission. A two-judge Bench of this Court relied on the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) and quashed the FIR, the Court examplified.
In view of the above, the Court noted 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 and accordingly and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court.
Read Judgement Here:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
