2026 Supreme(Guj) 853

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.
Amin Bhanjibhai Samidas – Appellant
Versus
Patel Dashrathbhai Mafatlal & Ors. – Respondent 
CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST ACQUITTAL) NO. 2520 of 2008
Decided on : 24-04-2026

Proceedings conducted in a court lacking territorial jurisdiction are not vitiated under Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless a failure of justice is proven. Furthermore, establishing bigamy requires strict proof of the performance of essential marriage ceremonies, which cannot be presumed from childbirth or cohabitation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 494 and 114 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 177, 178, 182(2), 201, 461 and 462 - Offence of bigamy - Territorial jurisdiction of court - Whether trial proceedings are vitiated by lack of local jurisdiction - Standard of proof for second marriage. (Paras 31, 48, 56, 62)

(B) Jurisdiction and Procedural Irregularity - While a court may lack territorial jurisdiction under Section 182(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, any finding or order passed is not to be set aside merely on grounds of wrong local area, unless it is established that such error occasioned a failure of justice as per Section 462. (Paras 50, 56)

(C) Proof of Marriage - Grave offences like bigamy require strict proof beyond reasonable doubt; mere cohabitation or the birth of a child is not sufficient proof of a valid second marriage, which necessitates evidence of the performance of essential rituals and ceremonies. (Paras 61, 64, 65)

Facts of the case:
A criminal complaint was initiated alleging the offence of bigamy during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. The trial court concluded that it lacked the requisite territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute, yet it proceeded to evaluate the evidence on its merits and acquitted the accused. The complainant challenged the acquittal and the jurisdictional findings of the lower court.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the trial court indeed lacked territorial jurisdiction under the relevant statutory provisions, as the offence was neither committed within its local area nor did the parties reside there. However, pursuant to the saving provisions under the procedural code, the proceedings could not be vitiated absent a demonstration of prejudice or failure of justice. Furthermore, on the merits, the complainant failed to establish the second marriage through cogent evidence of essential religious ceremonies, rendering the accusation unproven.

Issues: The main issues were whether the trial court possessed the necessary territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint and whether the lack of such jurisdiction vitiated the findings, in addition to whether the second marriage was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: Lack of territorial jurisdiction is a procedural irregularity that does not render a judgment void under Section 462 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless failure of justice is pleaded and proven. Additionally, in the absence of evidence confirming the performance of essential marriage rites, an allegation of bigamy cannot be sustained, regardless of secondary indicators like birth certificates.

Result: Appeal dismissed; trial court judgment confirmed.