THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8205 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 7 seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1184 of 2022 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Wanaparthy, registered for the offences under Sections 494, 109 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”).

2. Heard the submissions of Ms. Nallacheru Aishwarya, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned petitioners counsel has submitted that there are bald and vague allegations against the petitioners herein and that mere allegation alone is not sufficient to make out an offence under Section 494 of the IPC. She further submitted that all the accused herein cannot abet the second marriage of the petitioner No.1 and thus, there is no truth in the said allegations. She therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that initially the complaint was filed against accused Nos.1 to 16 and during the course of investigation, the Police could find that there is no case against accused No.8 to 16 and therefore, their names were deleted, but involvement of accused Nos.1 to 7 is made out during the course of investigation that they have knowledge about the first marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the de-facto complainant. Hence, Section 109 of the IPC gets attracted against these petitioners. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon S. Nagalingam Vs. Sivagami, (2001) 7 SCC 487, wherein the Court has relied upon in Kanwal Ram Vs. H.P Admn, AIR 1966 SC 614, in which case the Supreme Court has held that, in a bigamy case, the second marriage is to be proved and the essential ceremony required for a valid marriage should have been performed. It was held that mere admission on the part of the accused may not be sufficient. In the said case the second marriage of the accused was contended to be not a valid marriage by taking a plea that an important ceremony of ‘saptapadi’

was not performed. It was observed by the Supreme Court that ‘saptapadi’ is held to be an essential ceremony for a valid marriage only in case where it was admitted by the parties that as per the form of marriage applicable to them, that was an essential ceremony. In the instant case, the appellant had no such case that saptapadi was an essential ceremony for a valid marriage as per the personal law and therefore, it was proved that the appellant had committed the offence of Bigamy as it was performed during the subsistance of earlier marriage. Hence, the said case law does not aid the case of the petitioner herein.

7. The petitioner counsel has further relied upon S. Nitheen and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Another, in the said case, the presence of the petitioners during the second marriage was not established and it was further observed that those petitioners who were witnesses to the second marriage had no knowledge about the first marriage. No evidence was produced to show that the witnesses who have attended the second marriage had knowledge about the first marriage. Thus, in the said facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings against the petitioners were quashed, but the facts differ with the present case.

8. In the present case, the petitioners are aware about the first marriage, it is also disclosed from the recitals of the charge sheet that the temple authorities themselves have refused to perform the second marriage when the petitioners herein have approached it on learning that it is a second marriage, that means petitioners had knowledge about the first marriage. Therefore, the said case law is also not applicable to the case on hand.

9. The petitioner counsel further r