IMPORTANT POINT
Section 494, IPCrequires the following ingredients to be satisfied, namely, (i) the accused must have contracted first marriage; (ii) he must have married again; (iii) the first marriage must be subsisting and (iv) the spouse must be living.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 494 – Ingredients of-Section 494 requires the following ingredients to be satisfied, that accused must have contracted first marriage; that he must have married again; that first marriage must be subsisting and spouse must be living – In so far as present case was concerned appellant’s marriage with his was not subsisting when he was said to have married second time- Pertinently before the High Court, along with reply, the complainant annexed copy of an affidavit filed by wife of appellant which stated that she was not aware of the divorce proceedings filed by her husband-However, from this affidavit, it was apparent that her husband had obtained a divorce judgment- There was nothing in the affidavit that divorce judgment had been stayed or set aside – On the face of allegations made in the first information report, therefore, ingredients of the offence under Section 494, IPC were not satisfied (Para 8)
        Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – Section 482 – Petition filed by appellant for quashing F.I.R. registered under Sections 498–A, 494,506/34, IPC – Dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Held order of High Court could not be sustained for more than one reason – In the first place, the High Court gravely erred in observing that appellant married second time while he was already married with K and said marriage had not been dissolved – The certificate of divorce issued by New Westminster Registry, Supreme Court of British Columbia showed that marriage of parties stood dissolved – In the affidavit filed by, Deputy Superintendent of Police in response to the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 before the High Court, it had been admitted that during investigation photocopy of divorce certificate purporting to have been issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia was produced – The observation of the High Court, thus, that appellant married second time, although his marriage had not been dissolved, was ex – facie contrary to record – First information report was manifestly attended with malafides and actuated with ulterior motive – The prosecution of the appellant was not at all legitimate, rather it was frivolous, vexatious, unwarranted and abuse of process- Appeal allowed (Paras 7, 9 to 12)
       Facts of the Case :
        A Petition was filed by appellant for quashing F.I.R. registered under Sections 498-A, 494,506/34, IPC herein in the instant case. Said petition was Dismissed by High Court.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        Held order of High Court could not be sustained for more than one reason. In the first place, the High Court gravely erred in observing that appellant married second time while he was already married with K and said marriage had not been dissolved.The certificate of divorce issued by New Westminster Registry, Supreme Court of British Columbia showed that marriage of parties stood dissolved. In the affidavit filed by, Deputy Superintendent of Police in response to the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 before the High Court, it had been admitted that during investigation photocopy of divorce certificate purporting to have been issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia was produced. The observation of the High Court, thus, that appellant married second time, although his marriage had not been dissolved, was ex-facie contrary to record.

JUDGEMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.—

Leave granted.

2. In this appeal by special leave, the appellant has challenged the order dated May 24, 2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. By the said order, the petition filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing F.I.R. No. 9 dated January 21, 2002 registered at Police Station Sehna under Sections 498-A, 494, 506/34, IPC has been dismissed.

3. Kamaljeet Kaur is a landed immigrant of Canada. On May 7, 1997, she married Pashaura Singh Sidhu - appellant - at village Ghall Kalan, District Moga, Punjab. She left for Canada on May 15, 1997. She sponsored her husband and, accordingly, Pashaura Singh went to Canada in 1998. They stayed together for few months and then relations between them became strained. Kamaljeet, thereafter, started living separately in Ontario. Pashaura Singh applied for divorce and dissolution of marriage before the Supreme Court of British Columbia and a divorce judgment was passed in his favour and their marriage stood dissolved with effect from February 8, 2001. After the dissolution of marriage, Pashaura Singh came to India and remarried on January 2, 2002. Pashaura Singh went back to Canada with his newly wedded wife and both of them have been residing there.

4. On January 21, 2002, Kamaljeet’s brother Balwant Singh lodged a first information report being F.I.R. No. 9 at Police Station Sehna against Pashaura Singh, Hakam Singh (father of Pashaura Singh), Randhir Singh (brother of Pashaura Singh), Charanjit Kaur (wife of Randhir Singh) and Harbans Kaur (mother of Pashaura Singh) alleging therein that on May 7, 1997 he performed his sister Kamaljeet Kaur’s marriage with Pashaura Singh; that at the time of marriage, according to his status, he gave rupees four lacs in cash, gold jewelry, utensils, almirah, fifty-one suits, five bags etc. but the accused started harassing his sister Kamaljeet Kaur and threatened to kill her if she did not bring car, electronic items etc. and that he has now come to know that Pashaura Singh has entered into second marriage in the first week of January, 2002. A case under Sections 498-A, 494, 506/34, IPC was registered against the accused persons and it appears that the police submitted challan against them in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Barnala.

5. Randhir Singh, Charanjit Kaur (Rajinder Kaur), Hakam Singh and Harbans Kaur filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the F.I.R. No. 9 and criminal prosecution against them. Vide order dated April 29, 2004, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed F.I.R. No. 9 dated January 21, 2002 registered against them and all subsequent proceedings.

6. Pashaura Singh by a separate petition under Section 482 of the Code prayed for quashing F.I.R. No. 9/2002 and the subsequent criminal proceedings against him but, as noticed above, the High Court by its order dated May 24, 2006 dismissed his petition. The High Court in its cryptic order, while dismissing the petition, observed that Pashaura Singh has married second time on January 2, 2002 while he was already married with Kamaljeet Kaur and the aforesaid marriage has not been dissolved.

7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and upon careful perusal of the materials placed before us, in our judgment, the order of High Court cannot be sustained for more than one reason. In the first place, the High Court gravely erred in observing that Pashaura Singh married second time on January 2, 2002 while he was already married with Kamaljeet Kaur and the aforesaid marriage has not been dissolved. The certificate of divorce dated February 26, 2001 issued by the New Westminster Registry, Supreme Court of British Columbia shows that the marriage of Pashaura Singh and Kamaljeet Kaur stood dissolved on February 8, 2001. As a matter of fact, this fact is noticed in the order dated April 29, 2004 whereby the High Court quashed F.I.R. No. 9 and the subseq

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1735

2009(7) Supreme 283SUPREME COURT OF INDIATarun Chatterjee and R. M. Lodha,JJ.Pashaura Singh — AppellantversusState of Punjab & Anr. — RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 2122 of 2009(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5910/2006)Decided on : 13-11-2009

IMPORTANT POINT Section 494, IPCrequires the following ingredients to be satisfied, namely, (i) the accused must have contracted first marriage; (ii) he must have married again; (iii) the first marriage must be subsisting and (iv) the spouse must be living.

2009(7) Supreme 283
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and R. M. Lodha,JJ.
Pashaura Singh — Appellant
versus
State of Punjab & Anr. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2122 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5910/2006)
Decided on : 13-11-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 494, IPCrequires the following ingredients to be satisfied, namely, (i) the accused must have contracted first marriage; (ii) he must have married again; (iii) the first marriage must be subsisting and (iv) the spouse must be living.