126-2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 13.05.2026 MAHESH ...PETITIONER V/S JAIRAM ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate and Mr. Akash Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

****

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (ORAL)

1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. prayer is for quashing of complaint case bearing No.90 dated 21.12.2016 registered under Sections 494 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘the IPC’) [wrongly mentioned as Section ‘491’ instead of ‘494’ of the IPC in the prayer clause] titled as ‘Jairam vs. Smt. Rajan and others’ (Annexure P-1) and summoning order dated 21.05.2022 (Annexure P-2) pending before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Nuh.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner has allegedly committed bigamy by way of solemnizing second marriage with a woman namely Rajan (wife of the respondent-complainant), despite fact of existence of first wedlock. A complaint case bearing No.93 dated 16.08.2016 under Section 494 of the IPC was earlier filed by first wife of the petitioner, namely, Rajbala in which the petitioner had already been summoned by the trial court vide order dated 10.07.2019 to face trial. The present petition pertains to a separate complaint case bearing No.90 dated 21.12.2016, filed under Section 494 and 120-B of the IPC, by Jairam (husband of Rajan), for the same set of facts. Petitioner has also been arrayed as an accused in this complaint and has been summoned to face trial along with Rajan and other co-accused in the complaint.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent has moved a false private complaint before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nuh. The summoning order has been passed in a mechanical manner as there is no evidence available on record against the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that so far as Rajan is concerned, she is married to Udhey Pal. To prove this fact, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to photocopy of aadhar card and birth certificate of Jatin Sorout (Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively). Further, the petitioner has been involved in two cases, on the basis of same set of allegations i.e. the present complaint which has been filed by Jairam (husband of Rajan with whom petitioner has allegedly solemnized second marriage) and the another case has been registered by his own wife Raj Bala. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner has been implicated in two separate complaints for the same set of facts which amounts to double jeopardy. As such, learned counsel prayed for quashing of the present complaint as well as the summoning order.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that petitioner was earlier married to one Raj Bala and without obtaining divorce, he again got married with Rajan i.e. wife of the complainant. Thereafter, the matter was also sent for inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., upon which, an inquiry report has been received confirming the fact that the petitioner has remarried with Rajan and has also a child from this wedlock. As such, learned counsel submitted that there is ample evidence available on record to prove the complicity of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the present petition.

4. Heard.

5. Perusal of record transpires that the gravamen of the accusation in both complaints emanates from the same transaction and relates to the same alleged occurrence. The maxim “nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” (no person ought to be vexed twice for one and the same cause) has deep roots in criminal jurisprudence. Trial of the petitioner, in two separate criminal complaints filed in respect of single transaction or occurrence would amount to abuse of process of law. Moreover, petitioner cannot be held liable for offence under Section 120-B of the