COMMON ORDER:

These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”), seeking quashment of the proceedings against the petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 3 to 8 and 9 to 34 in C.C. No.1922 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judicial First Class Magistrate (for Prohibition and Excise Offences), Nalgonda.

2. Since the petitioners in both the petitions are accused in the very same crime and are facing identical allegations, both the petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard Ms. K. Kiranmayee, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P. No.2452 of 2024, Mr. J. Chandraiah, learned counsel for the petitioners in Crl.P. No.8051 of 2025, and Mr. M. Vivekananda Reddy, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1-State.

4.1. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 21.08.2018, the de facto complainant lodged a report stating that her marriage with accused No.1 was solemnized on 18.05.2011. It is alleged that within a month of marriage, accused No.1 and his family members began harassing her for additional dowry, which constrained her to initiate proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and also to lodge a criminal case under Section 498-A IPC.

4.2. Subsequently, accused No.1 filed a petition for divorce, which came to be decreed on 09.04.2017. During or subsequent to such proceedings, accused No.1 contracted a second marriage with accused No.2 on 10.07.2017.

4.3. It is alleged that the petitioners in Crl.P. No.2452 of 2024, who are the close relatives of accused No.1, including his mother, siblings, and their spouses, supported and facilitated the second marriage. Likewise, the petitioners in Crl.P. No.8051 of 2025 are alleged to have attended and participated in the said marriage ceremony. On this basis, all the petitioners were arrayed as accused Nos. 3 to 34 for the offence punishable under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations made against the petitioners are vague, omnibus, and devoid of specific particulars. It is further submitted that the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2 was performed only after the decree of divorce dated 09.04.2017 attained finality, and there was no subsisting marital relationship at the time of the second marriage; Section 494 IPC is attracted only when a person contracts a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage; The petitioners, being relatives or attendees of the ceremony, cannot be roped in under Section 494 IPC in the absence of specific allegations of abetment as contemplated under Sections 107 and 109 IPC; and there are no overt acts or material on record to show active instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the petitioners. It is therefore contended that continuation of proceedings against the petitioners amounts to abuse of process of law and is liable to be quashed.

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, as per the charge sheet, the petitioners are relatives and other persons who attended and supported the marriage between accused Nos.1 and 2. However, he fairly admits that the offence under Section 494 IPC primarily operates against the spouse who contracts a second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse. He leaves the matter to the discretion of the Court.

7. I have perused the material available on record.

8. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners, who are merely relatives or attendees of the alleged second marriage, can be prosecuted for an offence under Section 494 IPC.

9. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to Section 494 IPC, which reads as follows:

“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 punishe