The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of a void marriage and the interpretation of legal provisions related to marriage and marital offences.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

The present C-482 application has been preferred by the alleged husband of respondent no.2-complainant. The complainant herein is said to have registered a first information report, being F.I.R. No. 237 of 2016, for the alleged involvement of the present applicant herein, in commission of offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 313, 494 & 504 of I.P.C.

2. The matter was thereafter investigated upon, and the Investigating Officer had ultimately submitted a Charge Sheet, being Charge Sheet No. 53 of 2017 dated 21.03.2017, on which the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun has registered a Criminal Case No. 1400 of 2017 “State Vs. Sunil Naudiyal”, and consequentially had issued a summoning order dated 10.04.2017.

3. In the instant C-482 application, the challenge as it has been given is to the summoning order, whereby the present applicant-alleged husband has been summoned to be tried for the offences under Sections 376, 420, 120-B, 313, 504, 323 & 493 of I.P.C.. In these eventuality, this particular C-482 application has to be independently dealt with.

4. Because so far as the other connected C- 482 applications are concerned, where the summons have been issued, those have been issued exclusively, while taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 120-B & 504 of I.P.C., which has to be dealt with separately.

5. The reference in the relief clause has made by the applicant that the learned court has been taken cognizance against the applicant under Sections 376, 420, 120-B, 313, 504, 323 & 493 of I.P.C.

6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant, is from the following prospective:

(i) The issue would be with regard to the jurisdiction of the court’s taking cognizance of the matter, in pursuance to the F.I.R., which was got registered by the complainant-respondent no.2, whether the same would at all have jurisdiction or not?

(ii) Secondly as to whether, at all, be an offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. could be made out qua the respondent no.2, as against the present applicant, particularly when, there was a second marriage, which was solemnized by the present applicant during the subsistence of the first marriage, as admittedly the proceedings at the behest of them under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, was at the stage of second motion, and was yet to be finalized, which has not been finalized even till date, thus, the marriage with respondent no.2, was void or a voidable marriage.

(iii) He submitted that the act of “bigamy”, if at all it is there, it would be qua the first wife, against whom the proceedings under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, was going on, and it will not be qua the respondent no.2, the second wife, with whom the marriage was solemnized during the pendency of the proceedings of Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act.

7. The facts which are admitted are, and which would be vital too for the purposes of thepresent case is that, the proceedings under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, had reached upto to stage of the second motion on 27.11.2014, and before its final culmination, the second marriage with respondent no.2, was admittedly solemnized by the present applicant, which is a fact not denied. In these given set of circumstances, since the first marriage of the applicant was since still legally subsisting in the eyes of law, and even after having the knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, if the applicant had voluntarily solemnized the second marriage with respondent no.2, it would be a void marriage, right from its inception. Though for the applicant it would be an admitted relationship established by him, by second marriage.

8. There is a distinction between a ‘void’ or a ‘voidable marriage’. The factum of a voidable marriage is required to be established after securitization of a given set of facts, evidence and circumstances, but if a marriage is solemnized during the subsistence of the first m