Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Subhash Vitthal Ahire, filed a Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 0824 dated 27.09.2019 registered at Chatursrungi Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 376, 493, 494, and 496 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant, a widow and academician, alleged that the petitioner, who was her tutor during her student days, began visiting her after her husband's death on 24.02.2006 and provided moral support. The petitioner allegedly made the complainant believe that he was not getting along with his wife and would divorce her, and subsequently claimed to have divorced his wife. On 18.06.2014, the petitioner performed a second marriage with the complainant. They lived together until 31.01.2016, during which the complainant twice became pregnant but terminated the pregnancies. The petitioner later abandoned the complainant, leading her to discover that he had misrepresented his marital status and had never divorced his first wife. The petitioner argued that the complainant was aware of his subsisting marriage, that the relationship was consensual, and that he had provided her social, financial, and physical support. He admitted to the second marriage but contended that no offence under Section 376 IPC was made out. The State and the complainant opposed the petition, supporting the prosecution's case. The court, after perusing the investigation papers, noted that the fact of the petitioner's marriage with the complainant on 18.06.2014 during the subsistence of his first marriage was undisputed. The court held that under Hindu Law, a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage is not permissible and amounts to bigamy under Section 494 IPC. Regarding the rape allegation, the court observed that the petitioner made the complainant believe he had divorced his wife, and the physical relationship established under such false promise could satisfy the ingredients of Section 376 IPC. The court declined to consider the petitioner's defence based on a domestic inquiry at this stage, as it was a matter of evidence. Finding sufficient material to infer prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences, the court dismissed the petition as sans merit.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR - Prima Facie Case - Sections 376, 493, 494, 496 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging rape and bigamy. The court held that the petitioner's admission of a second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage, coupled with the complainant's allegation that she was deceived into believing he was divorced, establishes a prima facie case for offences under Sections 376 and 494 IPC. The petition was dismissed. (Paras 1-8) B) Hindu Law - Bigamy - Second Marriage During Subsistence of First Marriage - Section 494 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court held that under Hindu Law, a second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage is not permissible and amounts to the offence of bigamy. The petitioner's admission of performing a second marriage while his first marriage was subsisting satisfies the ingredients of Section 494 IPC. (Para 7) C) Criminal Law - Rape - Consent by Deception - Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The court held that where the petitioner made the complainant believe he had divorced his wife and performed a second marriage, the physical relationship established under such false promise could be said to have satisfied the ingredients of Section 376 IPC. The defence of consensual relationship cannot be considered at the stage of quashing. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR alleging offences under Sections 376, 493, 494, 496 IPC should be quashed when the petitioner admits to a second marriage during subsistence of his first marriage and claims the relationship was consensual.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The court found sufficient material to infer prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences and held that the petition sans merit.
Law Points
- Second marriage during subsistence of first marriage is void under Hindu Law and amounts to bigamy
- Consent obtained by deception regarding marital status vitiates consent for sexual intercourse
- Prima facie case for rape under Section 376 IPC when physical relationship is based on false promise of marriage
- Quashing of FIR not warranted when there is sufficient material to infer involvement in alleged offences
