Allahabad High Court
Badare Alam And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106741 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD (Sl. No. 14) Court No. - 78 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41892 of 2024 Applicant :- Badare Alam And 10 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Firdos Ahmad Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Sri Firdos Ahmad, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri S.K. Ojha, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No. 741 of 2022 (Akhtari Bano vs. Badre Alam and others) under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 494 I.P.C. as well as summoning order dated 16.02.2023 passed by Civil Judge (F.T.C.)/Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh.
3. Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that on the complaint of opposite party no. 2, all the applicants have been summoned for the offence under Section 147, 323, 504, 506, 494 I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that so far as the offence under Section 494 IPC is concerned that can be asserted and made out only against the spouse of the complainant, which is applicant no. 1 herein and the offence under Section 494 IPC cannot be said to have been made out against other applicants. He has also made submission with regard to falsity of entire incident as alleged in the complaint. Therefore, he seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant complaint case against the applicants.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that on the plain reading of the provisions of Section 494 IPC, it is apparent that it can be applicable only against the husband or the wife of the complainant. The other applicants ought not to have been summoned for the offence under Section 494 IPC. So far as the rest of the allegations are concerned, from a plain reading of complaint coupled with the statements recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., prima facie case has been made out against the applicants. Therefore, summoning of the applicants with regard to other offences cannot be interfered.
5. Having heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. From the record of the case, it is apparent that a complaint case was filed by opposite party no. 2 on 13.11.2018 alleging therein that she is the legally wedded wife of applicant no. 1 and during her lifetime the applicant no. 1 had solemnized the marriage with the applicant no. 5. Hence, she went to the house to object to the said marriage where she was abused and the police did not register the case against the husband-applicant no. 1. Subsequent thereto, on 10.9.2018 all the applicants came to the house of opposite party no. 2 and abused and assaulted the complainant and other family members for which the instant complaint case has been filed.
7. Section 494 IPC reads as under:-
"494. Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife:-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 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
8. For the offence under Section 494 IPC the following ingredients are required to be fulfilled:- (a) the accused must be either the husband or the wife of the complainant; (b) their marriage was a valid marriage; (c) the spouse of such person was alive; (d) the accused married again during the life of the spouse. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that it is only the husband or the wife of the person who commits bigamy can be punished under Section 494 IPC.
9. In view of the aforesaid provision, it is only the spouse of the complainant who can be summoned and convicted for the offence under Section 494 IPC none else. In view thereof, summoning of the applicants no. 2 to 11 for the offence under Section 494 is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 16.02.2023 is quashed to the extent of summoning of applicants no. 2 to 11 for the offence under Section 494 IPC. So far as the other offence are concerned, from plain reading of the complaint coupled with the statement of witnesses under Section 200 and 202 IPC, prima facie a case has been made out against the applicants. In view thereof, no interference is called for while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the instant application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Kirti (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.)