In a noteworthy judgment, the Calcutta High Court quashed criminal proceedings against an alleged second wife under charges of cruelty, bigamy, and other offenses. Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), presiding over the matter in Criminal Revision Petition (CRR) No. 2287 of 2023, held that a second wife cannot be made liable for cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) simply because her husband entered into a bigamous marriage.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint filed by the first wife of a man, alleging mental and physical torture, demands for dowry, and bigamy. According to the complaint, the couple was married in 2020, and the complainant alleged abuse shortly after. She further claimed that her husband entered into a second marriage while their marriage was still valid.
Based on the complaint, the police registered a case, leading to the initiation of criminal proceedings before the trial court. The charges included Sections 498A (cruelty), 494 (bigamy), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The alleged second wife challenged the proceedings in the High Court, seeking quashing of the charges on the ground that none of the alleged offenses were applicable to her.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Applicability of Section 494 IPC
Section 494 IPC penalizes a spouse for contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of a valid first marriage. The provision explicitly targets the individual who entered into the second marriage, raising the question of whether the second spouse can also be implicated.
2. Scope of Section 498A IPC
Section 498A IPC addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a wife. The legal issue was whether a second wife could be held liable for cruelty under this provision when allegations stemmed solely from the husband’s bigamous marriage.
3. Misuse of Criminal Law
The case also raised the issue of whether criminal proceedings could be allowed to continue when allegations were vague, unsupported by evidence, and did not meet the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses.
Court’s Observations
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) meticulously analyzed the allegations and the statutory framework of the offenses. Key observations included:
1. On Section 494 IPC (Bigamy):
The court clarified that the provision applies only to the individual who contracts a second marriage while the first marriage is subsisting. Justice Dutt emphasized:
“The offense under Section 494 of IPC is applicable to the person who has married for the second time, during the lifetime of his spouse in a valid marriage.”
The court concluded that the alleged second wife could not be implicated under this section.
2. On Section 498A IPC (Cruelty):
The court observed that the language of Section 498A is directed at acts of cruelty by the husband or his relatives. It noted:
“A second wife cannot be deemed to have committed cruelty under the mere premise of entering into a bigamous relationship with the husband.”
The court underscored that there was no evidence or specific allegation indicating that the petitioner subjected the complainant to cruelty.
3. On Misuse of Legal Process:
Citing the lack of substantive evidence against the petitioner, the court remarked:
“Permitting such a proceeding to continue would be a clear abuse of process of law.”
The judgment also referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal (1992), which cautioned against vague and unsubstantiated allegations being used to rope in individuals unnecessarily.
Decision
Based on the above observations, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against the alleged second wife. It held that the allegations did not meet the essential ingredients required to establish offenses under Sections 498A, 494, 406, and 506 of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The court concluded:
“The proceedings against the present petitioner are bad in law and permitting such a proceeding to continue would be a clear abuse of process of law.”
The court directed the trial court to comply with its decision and closed all related applications.
Representation
– For the Petitioner: Advocates representing the petitioner argued that the charges were baseless and lacked essential legal ingredients.
– For the State: The state counsel contested the petition but could not substantiate the allegations against the petitioner.
