Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Let us make an attempt to ascertain the purpose of enacting Section 494, IPC. This Section introduces monogamy which is essentially voluntary union of life of one man with one woman to the exclusion of all others. It enacts that neither party must have a spouse living at the time of marriage. Polygamy was practiced in many sections of Hindu society in ancient times. It is not a matter of long past that in India, hypergamy brought forth wholesale polygamy and along with it misery, plight and ignominy to woman having no parallel in the word. In post vedic India a King could take and generally used to have more than one wife. Section 4 of the Hindu Marriage Act nullifies and supersedes such practice all over Indian among the Hindus. Section 494 is intended to achieve laudable object of monogamy. This object can be achieved only by expanding the meaning of the phrase 'aggrieved person'. For variety of reasons the first wife may not choose to file complaint against her husband e.g. when she is assured of re-union by her husband, when husband assures to snap the tie of second marriage etc. Non-filing of the complaint under Section 494, IPC by first wife does not mean that the offence is wiped out and monogamy sought to be achieved by means of Section 494, IPC merely remains in statute book. Having regard to the scope, purpose, context and object of enacting Section 494, IPC and also the prevailing practices in the society sought to be curbed by Section 494, IPC, there is no manner of doubt that the complainant should be an aggrieved person. Section 198(1)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, amongst other things, provides that where the person aggrieved by an offence under Section 494 or Section 495, IPC is the wife, complaint on her behalf may also be filed by her father, mother, sister, son, daughter etc., or with the leave of the court, by any other person related to her by blood, marriage or adoption."

After laying down above, Hon'ble the Apex Court further held that bar of Section 198 of the Code shall not be applicable if the charge sheet filed by the police also includes some other offences which are cognizable and while holding so, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:-

" Here in this case in the charge sheet it is mentioned that the appellant has also committed offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code which is cognizable and, therefore, this is a case which relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable and, therefore, the case must be deemed to be cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. This is not a case in which the FIR is exclusively filed for commission of offences under Sections 494 and 495, IPC. The case of the respondent No.2 is that the appellant has committed offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 494, 495 and 498-A of the IPC. A question may arise as to what should be procedure to be followed by a complainant when a case involves not only non- cognizable offence but one or more cognizable offences as well. It is somewhat anomalous that the aggrieved person by the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495, IPC should file complaint before a court and that the same aggrieved person should approach the police officer for alleged commission of offences under Sections 417, 420 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code where the case involves one cognizable offence also along with non- cognizable offences it should not be treated as a non- cognizable case for the purpose of sub-section 2 of Section 155 and that is the intention of legislation which manifested in Section 155 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the arguments that the learned Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 495, IPC on the basis of submission of charge sheet, cannot be attested and is hereby rejected."

In Gopal Lal Versus State of Rajasthan (1979)2 SCC 170, the requirements of offences under Sections 494 and 495 along with the procedure of the same were again considered and it was held that:-

" In order to attract the provisions of Section 494, IPC both the marriages of the accused must be valid in the sense that the necessary ceremonies required by the personal law governing the parties must have been duly performed. Though Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that any marriage solemnized, if it contravenes the conditions specified in Clause (i) of Section 5 of the said Act, shall be null and void, it also provides that such marriage may on a petition presented by either party thereto, be so declared. Though the law specifically does not cast obligation on either party to seek declaration of nullity of marriage and it may be open to the parties even without recourse to the Court to treat the marriage as a nullity, such a course is neither prudent nor intended and a declaration in terms of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act will have to be asked for, for the purpose of precaution and/or record. Therefore, until the declaration contemplated by Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act is made by a competent court, the woman with whom second marriage is solemnized continues to be the wife within the meaning of Section 494 IPC and would be entitled to maintain a complaint against her husband."

Then again in State of Orissa Versus Sharat Chandra Sahu, 1997(1) Recent Criminal Reports 737= (1996) 6 SCC 435, the same question was considered in the similar facts. The facts of the above case were that the wife made a complaint in writing against her husband to the Women's Commission, making allegations of the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 498-A, IPC. The Women's Commission sent the complaint to the police station and charge sheet came to be filed under both the Sections. The High Court quashed the charge under Section 494, IPC in view of the Provisions of Section 198(1), Cr.P.C. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order of Orissa High Court and held that the offence under Section 494 is non-cognizable but the offence under Section 498-A, IPC was a cognizable offence and the police was entitled to take cognizance of the said offence and thus the order of quashing charge under Section 494 IPC by the High Court was set aside and it was held as under:-