Delhi District Court
Dinesh Verma vs The State And Anr on 2 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05
SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: DELHI
CA No. 46/2024
CNR No. DLST01-000964-2024
Dinesh Verma
S/o Sh. Hari Om Verma
R/o F-5, 2nd Floor, Gali no. 10,
Rajapur, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi - 110059 ...Appellant/Convict
Versus
1. The State
2. Mrs. Anju Soni
D/o H.R. Verma
R/o H.no. 164A, Main Road Devli,
Near Khanpur, New Delhi
....Respondent/Complainant
Date of filing : 06.02.2024
Date of arguments : 28.11.2025
Date of Order : 02.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide appeal filed by the appellant/convict under Section 415 of BNSS (erstwhile Section 374 of Cr.P.C) arising out of impugned judgment on conviction dated 14.09.2023 and order on sentence CA No. 46 of 2024 Digitally signed by Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Page 1 of 16 PATHAK Date:
2025.12.02 18:01:11 +0530 dated 08.01.2024 passed in case bearing CR No. 2035925/2016, titled "State vs. Dinesh Verma" FIR No. 335/2010, PS Neb Sarai, whereby appellant/convict was convicted for offence U/s 494/495 IPC and was sentenced as under:-
For offence U/s 494 IPC - Simple imprisonment for a term of six months and fine of Rs. 15,000/-. For offence U/s 495 IPC - Simple imprisonment for a term of eight months and fine of Rs. 20,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, appellant/convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for 60 days. The period of custody already undergone by convict in custody during trial, investigation etc. shall set off against the final sentence. Appeal has been filed well within its limitation period.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/convict Dinesh Verma, his father Hari Om Verma and his mother Smt. Shakuntala were accused for commission of offences U/s 498A/406/34 IPC in the instant FIR lodged by the complainant, who is wife of appellant Dinesh Kumar. Appellant/convict married with complainant on 09.03.2008 and at the time of said marriage he projected himself to be a widower as his first wife died during birth of the child. Complainant on the other hand was a divorcee and it was her second marriage. Complainant has leveled allegations of dowry harassment, beatings against the appellant and Digitally signed by CA No. 46 of 2024 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.12.02 Page 2 of 1618:01:19 +0530 his parents. Complainant lodged complaint before CAW Cell, Vasant Vihar, however, efforts for Mediation failed and matter could not be settled. During trial, on 13.10.2015, charge U/s 498A/406/34 IPC was framed against the appellant Dinesh Verma whereas charge U/s 406/34 IPC was framed against his father and mother.
Vide order dated 14.08.2019, additional charge U/s 494 IPC and U/s 495 IPC was framed against appellant. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses during trial. Statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of accused persons including appellant was recorded. On conclusion of trial, appellant/convict and his parents were acquitted for the offence U/s 498A/406 IPC, however, appellant/convict Dinesh Verma was convicted for offences U/s 494 and 495 IPC vide impugned judgment dated 14.09.2023. Consequently, vide impugned order on sentence dated 08.01.2024, appellant/convict Dinesh Verma was sentenced to Simple Imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 15,000/- for offence U/s 494 IPC and was also sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of eight months and fine of Rs. 20,000/- for offence U/s 495 IPC.
3. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment on conviction dated 14.09.2023 and order on sentence dated 08.01.2024, appellant/convict preferred the instant appeal on the following grounds:-
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.12.02 18:01:24 +0530 CA No. 46 of 2024 Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. Page 3 of 16
(a) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that owing to temperamental differences, appellant/convict got separated with his previous wife Smt. Varsha Rani in 2006 vide Deed of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent dated 22.10.2005 (Ex. PW-1/D3). It is stated that Varsha Rani got remarried and she was residing at Haridwar at the time of marriage of appellant/convict with the complainant with her two sons from first marriage;
(b) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that Section 494/495 IPC are non-cognizable offences and Court cannot take cognizance on police report. It is stated that Court cannot take cognizance and proceed for trial against the appellant/convict for offences U/s 494/495 IPC (even if the facts are proved), only on the basis of police report as no complaint was filed by the complainant;
(c) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the report dated 05.03.2003 address to SHO PS Pandav Nagar cannot be treated as complaint as it was neither addressed to Magistrate nor filed before him;
(d) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that as per provisions of Chapter XX of IPC, only on a complaint of aggrieved person (second wife herein), Court can take cognizance and not on the FIR presented by the police;
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.12.02 18:01:31 CA No. 46 of 2024 +0530 Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. Page 4 of 16
(e) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that no complaint has been filed by the complainant with regard to offences U/s 494/495 IPC against the appellant/convict;
(f) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that by virtue of the dissolution deed, appellant/convict and his first wife were at liberty to marry again as they put end to their marriage. It is stated that due to ignorance of law and owing to beliefs between them, the appellant/convict and his first wife Varsha Rani got separated and did not take divorce by a registered document;
(g) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the first wife of appellant contracted her re-marriage on the bonafide belief that her marriage with appellant ended as per the Dissolution deed;
(h) that Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that DW1 Smt. Shakuntala Soni, who is common relative of both the parties testified that complainant and her father were aware about the first marriage of the appellant at the time of his marriage with the complainant;
4. On the other hand, respondent no. 2/complainant has contested the appeal by filing her opposition/objection/reply stating therein that the offences U/s 494/495 are of grave and serious nature. It is stated Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM CA No. 46 of 2024 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. 2025.12.02 18:01:37 Page 5 of 16 +0530 that appellant/convict committed criminal cohabitation, fraud, concealment with the complainant for 10 years in addition to offence of bigamy. Appellant has lack of remorse and rehabilitation potential and it caused emotional and social impact on the victim.
5. The relevant findings given by Ld. Trial Court in impugned judgment dated 14.09.2023 are as under:-
"6.10 Apart from section 498A and 406, accused Dinesh has been charged U/s 494 and 495 IPC. As far as Sections 494 and 495 IPC are concerned, it is contended by Ld. counsel for accused that both the sections are non- cognizable and therefore, the court could not have taken cognizance of the offence on police report. He has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Baljeet Kaur @ Kulvinder Kaur vs. State of Haryana [1(1998) DMC 498], Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Suraj Lal Jaiswal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [2006 Crl. LJ 3323] and judgment of Ld. District Court in State vs. Joy George [SD no. 217/13]. The said judgments may be rlevant had the charge been made out against the accused only under Section 494 and 495 IPC. In the present matter, the accused has been charged not only U/s 494 & 495 IPC rather he has also been charged U/s 498A and 406 IPC. The issue whether the Court is empowered to take cognizance and to proceed further with the trial of offence U/s 494 and 495 IPC along with other cognizable offence such as offence U/s 498A IPC is put to rest by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ushaben vs. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada & Ors. On 23 March, 2012 [Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 2012 arising out of SLP (Crl) no. 2445 of 2010] wherein it is held as under:-
'13. Above provisions, lead us to conclude that if a complaint contains allegations about commission of offence under Section 498A of the IPC which is a cognizable offence, apart from allegations about the commission of offence Digitally CA No. 46 of 2024 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.12.02 Page 6 of 16 18:01:43 +0530 under Section 494 of the IPC, the court can take cognizance thereof even on a police report.
14. Reliance placed by the High Court on its earlier judgment in Babubhai Patel is misplaced.
In the case, the High Court was dealing with all offences falling under Chapter XX of the IPC. Initially, the accused were charged under Section 417 read with Section 114 of the IPC. That charge was given a go-by and a fresh charge in respect of Section 493 to 496 of the IPC was framed. These offences fall in Chapter XX of the IPC. Therefore, the High Court held that cognizance thereof can be taken by the Magistrate only on the basis of complaint filed under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code by an aggrieved person. That judgment cannot be applied to the present case. Facts of the case were different and there the High Court was dealing with cognizance of the offences falling under Chapter XX by the Magistrate. Upshot of the above discussion is that, no fetters can be put on the police preventing them from investigating the complaint which alleges offence under Section 498A of the IPC and also offence under Section 494 of the IPC. In the circumstances, the appeal must succeed. The impugned order is set aside. Obviously, therefore, the direction to delete Section 494 of the IPC is set aside. The police shall investigate the complaint in accordance with law."
6.11 Further Section 155 (4) of Cr.P.C. make it clear that where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.
6.12 Therefore, it is crystal clear from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the section cited above that the Court is empowered to take cognizance of the present case and proceed further with the trial if the charges leveled against the accused include that of cognizable offence such as 498A IPC along with non- cognizable offence U/s 494 and 495 IPC.
Digitally
signed by
CA No. 46 of 2024 PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK
Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. Page 7 of 16
Date:
2025.12.02
18:01:49
+0530
6.14 The complainant has deposed in her examination-in- chief that she was told that accused was a widower and that his first wife died during birth of child but one night, when the accused was in drunken condition, he told the complainant that his first wife was alive and he had two children with his first wife. It is not denied by the accused that he got married to the complainant and said marriage was second marriage of both the parties. It is further not in dispute that accused Dinesh was previously married to one lady. The accused has placed reliance upon the deed of dissolution Ex. PW-1/D3 which was entered into by the accused with his first wife. It is not the case of the accused that such dissolution had any acceptance under the Customary Law. It has to be kept in mind that the deed of dissolution is not equivalent to a decree of divorce obtained from the concerned court and therefore, has no legal sanctity. After the enactment of Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage between two Hindus can only be dissolved by decree of divorced obtained as per the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. Therefore, the corollary of this contention is that the marriage of the accused with his first wife Ms. Varsha was subsisting at the time when the accused got married to the complainant. Similarly, the fact that the first wife of the accused had got married before the marriage of the accused with the complainant does not put an end to the marriage of the accused with his first wife. Therefore, the fact taht the both marriages were performed by the accused following proper ceremonies is not in dispute and the only defence that the accused is taking is deed of dissolution is not sustainable as observed above and hence, as all the four essential ingredients of offence u/s 494 IPC aqre present in the present case, the accused is held liable for committing the offence of bigamy u/s 494 IPC by marrying the complainant during life time of wife Ms. Varsha.
6.15 Coming to offence u/s 495 IPC, it reads as under:
Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted-whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section CA No. 46 of 2024 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:Page 8 of 16
2025.12.02 18:01:54 +0530 having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
6.16 As held above, the accused stands convicted u/s 494 IPC, therefore, the only issue for consideration for conviction u/s 495 IPC is that whether the said fact of the first marriage was concealed from the complainant by the accused. In this regard, it is deposed by the complainant that she was told by the accused that he was a widower.
Same allegation is corroborated y the complaint made by the complainant to the CAW Cell and FIR dated 23.12.2010. The said fact is corroborated by the testimony of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6 who have also deposed that they were informed that the accused was a widower, however, they later on got to know that the first wife of the accused was still alive and therefore, accused Dinesh Verma is neither a widower nor a divorcee rather he has two children from his previous marriage. Nothing contrary has come on record in their cross-examination and therefore, their testimonies are found to be reliable and trustworthy. One of the arguments made by Ld. Counsel for complainant in support of the allegations u/s 495 IPC is that all the accused persons had filed falsely sworn affidavit before Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, South Saket, New Delhi deposing that accused Dinesh is a widower and persistently maintained their stand before Ld. ASJ, South, Saket till the time complainant presented phone bills containing call details of accused Dinesh and his first wife Ms. Varsha. Vide order dated 26.04.2011 of Ld. ASJ, South, Saket, the applications of anticipatory bail of the accused persons were disposed of as under:
"It is the matter of fact the accused Dinesh Verma is not a widower. It is also the fact that Dinesh Verma had not taken any valid divorce from the previous wife who is living at Haridwar".
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.12.02 18:02:00 CA No. 46 of 2024 +0530 Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. Page 9 of 16
6. I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for both the parties as well as Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the record.
7. Ld. counsel for the respondent/complainant and Ld. Addl.
PP for the State has argued that Ld. Trial Court has passed a well reasoned conviction order and sentence order considering all the contentions raised by the appellant/convict in the instant appeal. It is argued that the impugned order does not suffer any infirmity or illegality and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/convict has argued on the lines of the grounds taken by him in the instant appeal. It is argued that appellant/convict cannot be charged and convicted for the offence U/s 494 and 495 of IPC as he entered into dissolution deed dated 22.10.2005 (Ex. PW1/D3) with his first wife Varsha Rani after which he entered into second marriage with the complainant. It is argued that Ld. Trial Court ought to have not taken the cognizance of the offence U/s 494/495 IPC as said offences are non-cognizable and no complaint whatsoever has been filed by the complainant in this regard to the Magistrate. It is further argued that no cognizance can be taken against the appellant/convict U/s 494/495 IPC on the basis of the police report, even if the facts stands proved. It is stated that vide dissolution deed, appellant put end to his Digitally CA No. 46 of 2024 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.12.02 Page 10 of 16 18:02:05 +0530 first marriage and his first wife remarried believing the said dissolution deed to be their actual divorce. It is argued that appellant did not get a registered divorce from the Court due to lack of knowledge. It is argued that the complainant and her family was aware about the first marriage and separation of the appellant at the time of his marriage with the complainant. It is prayed that appellant be given benefit of Probation of offenders Act being a first time offender. It is argued that appellant is liable to be acquitted of the alleged charges. Appellant/convict has relied upon the following judgments:-
(a) Baljeet Kaur @ Kulvinder Kaur vs. State of Haryana, 1 (1998) DMC 498, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana;
(b) Suraj Lal Jaiswal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2006 CrL L.J. 3323 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad;
(c) Sankaran Sukumaran vs. Krishnan Saraswathy and Anr. 1984 Crl. LJ 317, passed by Hon'ble Kerala High Court;
9. In the instant case, much deliberations are not required as the material facts are not in dispute between the parties. The first marriage of the appellant/convict with his first wife Varsha Rani and birth of two children, who are in custody of his first wife has not been disputed by him. It is his own case that appellant got separated from his first Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM CA No. 46 of 2024 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. Page 11 of 162025.12.02 18:02:10 +0530 wife vide Deed of Dissolution dated 22.10.2005 (Ex. PW1/D3) after which she remarried at Haridwar and two children from first marriage are in her custody. Even the second marriage of the appellant/convict with the complainant, who is a divorcee is also not in dispute. The defence of the appellant/convict as regards commission of offences U/s 494 and 495 IPC is limited to the extent of lack of knowledge about obtaining registered divorce from the Court and that his first marriage was dissolved vide Deed of Dissolution of Marriage by mutual divorce (Ex. PW1/D3), as per which he and his first wife were at liberty to remarry. Appellant has relied upon that dissolution deed to be a valid document of divorce between him and his first wife Varsha Rani whereas respondent/complainant has refuted to the same on the ground that it was invalid and the marriage was declared by the Family Court as null and void, as it never subsisted. Hence, the appellant does not fall in the category of 'husband', which was one of the ground of his discharge for offence U/s 498A IPC. It is matter of record that appellant/convict did not obtain a legal divorce from the Court of law prior to solemnizing marriage with the complainant. Except the Dissolution deed, appellant/convict has no defence to justify the validity of his second marriage with the complainant. When legislature in its wisdom has made provisions for departing and putting end to marriage by provisions of Section 13 of HMA and also though mutual divorce, then Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM CA No. 46 of 2024 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. 2025.12.02 18:02:37 Page 12 of 16 +0530 merely entering into deeds and agreements between the parties has no standing in the eyes of law. Hence, appellant is neither a widower nor the divorcee and his second marriage was invalid.
10. The defence which has been re-agitated by the appellant/convict in the instant appeal which was also taken as defence before the Ld. Trial Court regarding taking cognizance in an non-cognizable offence U/s 494/495 IPC has been meticulously dealt by the Ld. Trial Court in para 6.10 of the impugned judgment dated 14.09.2023 and the same has been reproduced above. Hence, the said defence needs no more justification as the same has been suitably considered within the scope of authoritative judgments of the Apex Court. It stands established that when a case relates to two or more offences wherein at least one of the offence is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence, irrespective of the fact that some of the offences are non- cognizable.
11. It is not the case where the first marriage of the appellant/convict was dissolved by any customary law or practice wherein Dissolution deed is honored or acceptable. Moreover, there is a huge difference between the dissolution of marriage through a decree of divorce passed by a competent Family Court and Dissolution deed Digitally signed by CA No. 46 of 2024 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.12.02 Page 13 of 16 18:02:42 +0530 entered between the parties. Only the dissolution of marriage by a valid decree of divorce prevails over any agreement/Deed of dissolution of marriage entered between the parties, even if the terms of such Deed are acceptable to both the spouses. Such Dissolution Deeds has no legal sanctity over decree of divorce. The second marriage of the appellant/convict under no circumstances can be termed as a valid marriage as he was already married with Varsha Rani at the time of his second marriage with complainant. It is not for the Courts to accept the agreements/deeds of the parties but for the parties to obey the law of land. It is not in dispute that both the marriage of the appellants with Varsha Rani and consequently with the complainant herein were solemnized following proper rituals, hence, it stands proved that appellant entered into second marriage without taking legal divorce from his first wife, thereby making his second marriage as invalid. Prosecution has been successful in proving its case for commission of offences U/s 494 and 495 IPC and appellant/convict failed to rebut the same.
12. During course of arguments on the application under Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Ld. defence counsel had argued that the conviction U/s 494/495 IPC is arising out of a matrimonial dispute, as such, lenient view may be taken against the appellant and he may be released on probation. On the other hand, Ld. Digitally signed by CA No. 46 of 2024 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.12.02 18:02:48 Page 14 of 16 +0530 counsel for the respondent/complainant submit that since the marriage between the appellant and the complainant has been declared as null and void, therefore, the question of conviction arising of matrimonial dispute does not arise at all. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to extend benefit of probation to appellant as the present case involves deliberate misconduct. The application of Probation Act stands dismissed, accordingly. In my view, such deliberate conduct of appellant despite subsistence of his marriage, he solemnized second marriage with the complainant is dehumanizing act and is unlawful intrusion of sanctity of a female. It degrades and humiliates the victim and leaves behind a traumatic experience for her. It is also evident from the impugned order on sentence that Ld. Trial Court has already taken a lenient view by awarding the sentence of six and eight months for offences U/s 494 IPC and 495 IPC respectively, which is the quite lower sentence as per the imprisonment provided in the offence for which he has been convicted. Therefore, this court would be failing in its duty, if any further leniency is shown to the appellant.
13. To summarize, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and the order on sentence emanating therefrom. Resultantly, the instant appeal stands dismissed. The impugned judgment and sentence stands upheld.
Digitally CA No. 46 of 2024 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.12.02 Page 15 of 16 18:02:56 +0530 Appellant/convict is given benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. Appellant be taken into custody and be sent to jail under appropriate warrant for serving his sentence. The fine amount remains unpaid. Needless to say, Ld. Trial Court shall be at liberty to recover the same as per law. Copy of the order be given free of cost to the appellant. Appellant has further been apprised that he can challenge the present order before Hon'ble High Court, in case he so desires.
14. TCR be sent back along with copy of this judgment to Ld. Trial Court. Copy of the judgment be also sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for compliance through email. Copy of the judgment be provided to the appellant.
15. Copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the learned Trial Court.
16.Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
Announced in the open Court signed by
PURSHOTTAM
Today on 2nd December, 2025 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.12.02
18:03:06
+0530
(PURSHOTAM PATHAK)
Additional Sessions Judge-05 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi : 02.12.2025 CA No. 46 of 2024 Dinesh Verma vs. The State & Anr. Page 16 of 16