Cognizance of bigamy must be based on a complaint by the aggrieved party, violating procedural laws invalidates prosecution.

ORDER

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNSS , 2023’) seeking quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.2175 of 2020 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, against the petitioner.

2. I have heard Mr. K. Devanath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Jithender Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the respondent No.1-State.

3. The relevant facts, succinctly stated, are as follows: Respondent No.2, acting as the de facto complainant, lodged a police report on 22.01.2020, alleging that his legally wedded wife had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of their marriage, thereby committed the offence of bigamy. Pursuant to the complaint, the police registered a case as Crime No. 36 of 2020 under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), initiated an investigation, and filed charge sheet. The concerned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 494 IPC, and the case was assigned C.C. No. 2175 of 2020.

4. During the proceedings, learned Senior Counsel, representing the petitioner, contended that the prosecution is not legally sustainable. The core of the argument was that the Magistrate’s cognizance based solely on the police report contravenes the procedural mandate under Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Cr.P.C .), which stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of an offence under Section 494 IPC except upon a complaint made by the aggrieved person. In support of this position, reliance was placed on the judgment in B.

Parvathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2020 SCC Online AP 5076.

5. Conversely, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor acknowledged that, although the allegations in the police report may prima facie disclose the commission of an offence, the act of taking cognizance solely based on the police report, without a formal complaint from the aggrieved party as mandated under Section 198 Cr.P.C ., renders the proceedings procedurally flawed and legally untenable.

6. I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel.

7. Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the CrPC’), explicitly mandates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence falling under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code , 1860, which pertains to offences relating to marriage, unless a complaint is made by the person aggrieved by such offence. The offence of bigamy, as defined under Section 494 IPC, squarely falls within the ambit of Chapter XX and directly concerns the sanctity and legality of the marital relationship.

8. Accordingly, for a Court to lawfully assume jurisdiction over an allegation of bigamy, it is imperative that the prosecution be instituted through a formal complaint by the person who is the direct victim of the alleged offence. In the present case, the prosecution was initiated on the basis of a police report, rather than a complaint from the aggrieved spouse. This procedural defect strikes at the root of the Court’s jurisdiction and renders the cognizance taken by the Magistrate unsustainable in law.

9. In support of this proposition, authoritative guidance can be drawn from the judgment in B. Parvathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh , 2020 SCC Online AP 5076, wherein the Hon’ble Court elucidated the legal position with clarity. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:

“The said Andhra Pradesh Second Amendment Act 3 of 1992 was reserved by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on the 21.10.1991 for consideration and