Case Note & Summary
Background: The case arose from two criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court of Karnataka at Kalaburagi Bench, challenging orders passed by the trial court in a private complaint alleging bigamy and abetment. The first petition (Crl.P No.201695 of 2023) was filed by accused Nos.1,2 and 4 to 11 against the order dated 13.10.2023 in Crl.R.P.No.168/2021, while the second petition (Crl.P No.201313 of 2024) was filed by accused Nos.2 and 13 seeking quashing of the order dated 26.11.2021 and entire proceedings in C.C.No.612/2022. The matter came before a division bench upon a reference by a single judge on the legal question whether abetment under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is not applicable to an abettor of the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. Facts: The complainant-wife (respondent No.2 in both petitions) filed a private complaint P.C.No.88/2021 before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sindagi, alleging that accused No.1, her husband, contracted a second marriage with accused No.2 while the first marriage was subsisting. It was further alleged that accused Nos.3 to 13 participated in the marriage ceremony, with accused No.1 tying 'Tali' to accused No.2 and others showering 'Arathakshatha', and that accused Nos.3 and 4 threatened C.W.1 and C.W.2 to not inform anyone. The trial court, after considering the sworn statements of C.W.1 and C.W.2 and documents Exs.C1 to C7, took cognizance of offences under Sections 494, 109 read with 149 of IPC against accused Nos.1 to 13 by order dated 26.11.2021. The revision petition filed by some accused was dismissed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, on 13.10.2023. Thereafter, the accused filed criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC. A single judge of the High Court, noticing conflicting views, referred the question of law to a larger bench. Legal Issues: The primary legal issue was whether abetment under Section 109 IPC is not applicable to an abettor of the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. The related issue was whether the cognizance order and proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC. Arguments: Counsel for the accused contended that there was no substance in the complaint and that the single judge ought to have quashed the proceedings instead of referring the matter. They cited Chand Dhawan (Smt) vs. Jawahar Lal and Others, (1992) 3 SCC 317, arguing that other respondents were unnecessarily and vexatiously roped in and allegations were vague. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant argued that Sections 107 and 109 of IPC are penal provisions that apply to the offence of bigamy without any distinction or exception, and that if material discloses instigation, abetment, or intentional aiding for a second marriage, Section 109 IPC can be invoked. The complainant's counsel submitted that the reference should be answered by holding that Section 109 IPC is applicable to abettors of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. Court's Analysis: The division bench noted that the single judge had referred the matter because of conflicting views between the Rajasthan High Court in Shrawan Singh and Another vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, 2023 SCC Online Raj 1247, and a co-ordinate bench of the Karnataka High Court in Thimmappa vs. Bharathi, Crl.P.No.7517/2017 dated 13.03.2024. The single judge observed that Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita does not carve out any exception for abettors of Section 494 IPC. The division bench heard arguments and noted the factual allegations and cognizance order. The provided judgment text does not include the final decision or answer to the reference. Decision: The final decision is not mentioned in the provided text. The matter was heard and reserved for orders, but the operative conclusion is not available.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment - Applicability of Section 109 IPC to Offence of Bigamy under Section 494 IPC - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 107, 109, 494 - The reference raised the question whether abetment under Section 109 IPC is not applicable to an abettor of bigamy under Section 494 IPC; conflicting views existed between Rajasthan High Court in Shrawan Singh and a co-ordinate bench of Karnataka High Court in Thimmappa; the single judge referred the matter to a larger bench, noting that Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita does not carve out any exception for abettors of Section 494 IPC; learned counsel for accused argued abetment not applicable and cited Chand Dhawan, while complainant's counsel argued Section 109 IPC applies to abetment of bigamy and court should answer accordingly. (Paras 2, 3, 9, 10, 11) B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Proceedings - Cognizance for Offences under Sections 494, 109 r/w 149 IPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - The trial court took cognizance against accused Nos.1 to 13 for offences under Sections 494 and 109 read with 149 IPC based on complaint and sworn statements of C.W.1 and C.W.2 and documents Exs.C1 to C7; accused persons filed petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing; the single judge did not quash the proceedings but referred the legal question to a larger bench; the larger bench was hearing the petitions along with the reference. (Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether abetment under Section 109 of IPC is not applicable for the abettor of offence of bigamy under Section 494 of IPC; and whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 107 IPC defines abetment
- Section 109 IPC provides punishment for abetment if no express provision
- Section 494 IPC penalizes bigamy
- Abetment of bigamy may attract Section 109 IPC unless a statutory exception exists
- No exception for abettors of Section 494 IPC is carved out in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Cognizance can be taken for Section 109 read with 149 IPC if material discloses abetment
