IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI

th

ON THE 10 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 47119 of 2023 MANI PRAKASH TIWARI Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ankit Saxena - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Savita Choudhary - Advocate for the respondent No.2.

ORDER The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashment of FIR bearing Crime No. 127/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali Panna, District Panna (M.P.) for offences punishable under Sections 494, 294 and 506 of IPC, and the entire proceedings pending before the learned JMFC, Panna in RCT No. 326/2021. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 05.08.2023 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Panna in CRR No. 54/2022 affirming the order dated 13.06.2022 passed by JMFC, Panna framing charges against the petitioner under Section 498-A, 494 and 506 of IPC. 2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication are that the petitioner and respondent No.2 were married. Subsequently, the petitioner obtained a decree of divorce vide judgment and decree dated 24.12.2011 passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Damoh in Civil Suit No. 2A/10. The petitioner and respondent started living separately. The judgment dated 24- 12-2011 was subject to challenged in First Appeal No. 37/2012 which is still pending before the High Court. During the pendency of appeal, the petitioner performed second marriage and thus the respondent no. 2, lodge a complaint at Panna on 01-02-2021.

3. It is submitted by the petitioner that earlier respondent No.2 had lodged an FIR under Sections 498-A, 323, 294 and 506-II IPC at Damoh, in which the petitioner was acquitted by JMFC, Damoh vide judgment dated 26.11.2016, and the said acquittal was affirmed in appeal vide judgment dated 07.09.2017. It is contended that registration of the present FIR on similar allegations amounts to abuse of the process of law and is hit by the principle of double jeopardy. It is further submitted that offence under Section 494 IPC is non-cognizable and in view of Section 198 Cr.P.C., cognizance can be taken only upon a complaint made by the aggrieved person and not on a police report. for the offence under section 494 of IPC it is necessary. He further argued that to attract section 494 of IPC, there must be relation of husband and wife but in the present case the divorce has already taken place and therefore, the charge under section 494 of IPC is also bad in law. The decree of divorce is in effect and has not been stayed by the High Court and therefore no offence is made out. He prays to allow the petition.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for State as well as respondent No.2 submit that the decree of divorce dated 24.12.2011 is under challenge before the High Court and, therefore, during pendency of appeal, the petitioner could not have contracted a second marriage. It is submitted that the proceedings are rightly initiated.

5. Heard the contentions of all the parties.

6. At the outset, it is necessary to refer to Section 494 of the IPC, which reads as under:

“494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.—

Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Further, Section 198(1) Cr.P.C. provides:

“198. Prosecution for offences against marriage.— (1)No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence.”

Provided that—

(a) where such person is under the age of eighteen years, or is an idiot or a lunatic, or is from sickness or infirmity unable to make a complaint, or is a woman who, according to the local c