Section 494 of the IPC specifically punishes only the erring spouse; it cannot be extended to other persons via abetment or common intention. Additionally, an offence under Section 494 is only attracted upon proof of a second marriage, not mere cohabitation or an illegal relationship.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN P.C.R.NO.36051/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 494 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDITIONAL IST CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. MYSURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT IN P.C.R.NO.36051/2017 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 494 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2018 TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 494 OF IPC READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND ISSUING PROCESS IN C.C.NO.3630/2018 (ARISING OUT OF PCR NO.3605/2017) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL I CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. MYSURU.

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

Crl.P.No.470/2019 is filed by the accused No.4, while Crl.P.No.7922/2018 is filed by the accused Nos.2 and 3 and Crl.P.No.6031/2022 is filed by the accused No.1 challenging the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') in C.C.No.3630/2018 by which, cognizance was taken for an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2.

(i) The respondent/complainant is the wife of the accused No.1. She filed a private complaint in PCR No.36051/2017 contending that the accused No.1 was her husband and that accused No.1 had multiple illicit relationships. She claimed that the accused No.1 had married the accused No.4 and that the accused Nos.2 and 3 being the children of the complainant and accused No.1 were silent spectators to the illicit relationship of accused No.1 with accused No.4. She therefore, alleged that accused Nos.1 and 4 were in a bigamous relationship and that accused Nos.2 and 3 were supporting them and therefore, requested the Court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(ii) The Trial Court recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and thereafter, took cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued process to the accused/petitioners.

(iii) The petitioners aggrieved by the said order, are before this Court.

3. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that accused Nos.2 and 3 are the children of the complainant and accused No.1 and they have been arraigned as accused on the ground that they were silent spectators to the bigamous marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.4. He contends that for an offence under Section 494 of IPC, it is only the erring spouse who can be prosecuted and not the near relatives of the accused No.1. He also contends that accused No.4 also cannot be prosecuted for an offence under Section 494 of IPC. In so far as accused No.1 is concerned, he contends that the complainant did not disclose as to when the accused No.1 had married the accused No.4. On the contrary, he contends that the complainant had mentioned in the private complaint that accused No.1 and accused No.4 were living in an illegal relationship. He therefore, contends that as long as the complainant does not prove the marriage of accused No.1 with accused No.4, an offence under Section 494 of IPC is not made out. He