The Calcutta High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by the first wife, determining that the offence under Section 494 of the IPC applies solely to the husband who entered into a second marriage, rather than to his second wife.
The Court granted the revision to the second wife’s (Petitioner) request to quash criminal proceedings against her under Sections 498A, 494, 406, and 506 of the IPC, as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (the Act). Since the petitioner was the husband’s second wife and not a relative, the court determined that the charges did not initially apply to her.
A Single Bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) explained the scope of Section 494 of the IPC, stating, “The said provision and the language used therein clearly implicates that the offence alleged under Section 494 of IPC is applicable to the person who has married for the second time, during the life time of his spouse in a valid marriage.”
Senior Advocate D.R. Ravishankar represented the Respondents, while Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam M. appeared on behalf of the Petitioner.
The criminal procedures were started based on a written complaint filed by the first wife (complainant). The complainant claimed that her husband and his family demanded dowry, subjected her to mental and physical torment, and that he later married another lady and was enjoying a conjugal life with her.
The Petitioner requested the quashing of the proceedings, contending that the allegations contained in the complaint were not pertinent to her and that she was not a relative of the complainant’s spouse.
The High Court remarked that Section 494 of the IPC punishes the conduct of marrying again during a spouse’s lifetime. However, the offence applies “to the person who has married for the second time, during the life time of his spouse in a valid marriage,” the Court stated.
As a result, the Court determined that, “The said conduct of second marriage is prima facie applicable in respect of the husband of the complainant and the ingredients of the offences alleged are prima facie not applicable in respect of the petitioner herein.”
The Bench concluded that the remaining alleged offences were prima facie inapplicable to the Petitioner. The court observed, “The ingredients required to constitute the offence under Section 506 IPC are also not present in respect of the petitioner herein,”.
As a result, the Criminal Revision was allowed by the High Court.
Advocates Sourav Mondal and Roni Mondal Appeared on behalf of the Petitioners.
Advocates Tanmoy Kumar Ghosh and M.F.A. Begg, for the respondents,
Case Title: S v. State of West Bengal & Anr.