Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
PRAKASH D. NAIK, J
Deepak Laxminarayan Varma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1850 OF 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.J.Shirke I/by Sagar Bhandare
For the Respondents: Mr.Santosh Vhatkar I/by Santosh Vhatkar & Associates, Mr.P.H.Gaikwad, APP
For charges of bigamy, valid proof of marriage during the subsistence of a previous marriage is essential, emphasizing scrutiny of evidence before proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Issuance of process - Petitioners challenged the order of issuance of process and revision applications regarding allegations of bigamy against petitioner no.1 based on lack of evidence - Court found that prima facie evidence existed for two accusations but insufficient evidence for others. (Paras 1 to 14)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleges bigamy against petitioner no.1, claiming he married her despite being married to someone else. Evidence included medical certificates and birth registrations establishing the third marriage and children. Petitioners argued the complaint lacked specificity and material evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged prima facie evidence against petitioner no.1 for allegations of bigamy but found no substantial evidence to proceed against others, leading to partial quash of proceedings.
Issues: The court addressed the sufficiency of evidence required to establish the offences alleged, specifically the nature of marital proof necessary for prosecution under IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for allegations of bigamy to hold, valid marriage proofs must exist, and insufficient evidence would lead to quashing the proceedings against certain accused. The trial must ascertain the validity of allegations based on the presented evidence.
Result: Criminal Writ Petition No.1850 of 2017 is partly allowed; proceedings against petitioner nos.2 to 4 are quashed; writ against petitioner nos.1 and 5 stands dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. proceedings initiated through constitutional and procedural legal frameworks. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations of bigamy based on marital status and prior marriage. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. amount of evidence presented and its implications for trial. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. recognition of valid marriages as essential to prosecute bigamy claims. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. partial quash of proceedings reflects varying levels of evidence against each accused. (Para 14) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners have invoked
2. The respondent no.2 had initiated the impugned proceedings by filing a complaint before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, at Mumbai, for offences under Sections 494 , 495, 107, 109, 112, 114, 120-B, 192, 200, 406, 415, 417, 418, 419, 420, 463, 464, 465 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
3. Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are as follows.
4. The complainant got acquainted with petitioner no.1 and subsequently they got married on 11th February 2005 as per Hindu Vedic rites. The complainant was harassed by the accused. She was thrown out of matrimonial home. The petitioner no.1 filed divorce petition before the Family Court, at Bandra, Mumbai. The said petition was dismissed on 27th January 2012. The complainant forwarded letter dated 21st May 2012 for restoration of conjugal rights. Prior to the marriage of complainant, the petitioner no.1 was already married to Smt.Sunit Deepak Varma, which was not disclosed to the complainant. After the marriage with the complainant, petitioner no.1 again got married for the third time with one Neelu Sharma. After the said wedlock daughter namely Disha was born. The complainant obtained medical certificate with regards to delivery of Neelu Sharma giving birth to a female child on 27th August 2010. The petitioner no.1 thereby committed the offence under Section 494 of IPC. The complainant also obtained extract of birth register from the Registrar of Birth, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh. The complainant initiated proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The petitioner no.1 is not naturally handicapped and the deformity in his physic was due to improper operation. He had forged documents while obtaining handicap certificate. The complainant lodged first information report with Borivali Police Station on 22nd January 2013 vide CR No.31 of 2013 for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 506-II, 494 along with Section 34 of IPC. However, since the offence u/s 494(4) of IPC was to be tried separately, the complainant intended to forward appropriate application to avoid double jeopardy. During the course of investigation the third wife of petitioner no.1 was called for recording statement by Borivali Police Station wherein she stated that the father of her daughter namely Disha is petitioner.
5. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 26th Court, Borivali, Mumbai directed Borivali Police Station to conduct inquiry and submit report under Section 202 of Cr.P.C . Thereafter inquiry was conducted by police and report was submitted u/s 202 of Cr.P.C on 27th February 2015. Learned Magistrate thereafter issued process against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The petitioners preferred Criminal Revision Application No.84 of 2015 before the Sessions Court challenging the order of process. The said revision application was dismissed by order dated 21st March 2017.
6. Learned advocate for petitioners submitted that the complaint was initiated with mala fide intentions to cause harassment to the petitioners. The respondent no.2 has launched several proceedings to cause harassment to the petitioners. There is no evidence to establish the offences al
