JUDEGMENT SUMMARY:
Musstt Rehana Begum vs The State of Assam
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
21th January 2022
JUDGES:
D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
B.M. Trivedi, J.
PARTIES:
Musstt Rehana Begum (Appellant)
The State of Assam and Anr (Respondent)
SUBJECT
The finding of Family Courts regarding previous marriage can be relied upon to quash the criminal proceeding of bigamy. Section 494 and 495 of IPC provide the offence of bigamy.
AN OVERVIEW
1. The appellant and the second respondent were married in accordance with the Muslim Law in 1996. The appellant had lodged a complaint and a criminal case was registered in 2011. She alleged that she was abused by the second responded due to her failure in providing him with the demanded dowry.
2. The second respondent alleged that the appellant was already married when she entered into marriage with him, her previous marriage being solemnized in 1987.Additionally, she had concealed this fact from him. The second respondent had lodged the complaint of bigamy and concealment of the previous marriage against the appellant in 2015.
3. The seconded respondent had produced a purported divorce certificated colluding with the Sadar Kazi. The Principal Judge of Family Court I, Kamrup had declared the divorce purportedly to be null and void in 2017 on the following ground:
a. The divorce was not procured as per due procedure and no reconciliation between the parties had taken place.
b. The appellant’s alleged previous marriage had not been proved.
4. The appellant had instituted a proceeding under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings against her which was dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court in 2018 on the grounds that:
a. It was highly debatable whether the appellant had a marital relationship with another person prior to her marriage with the second respondent and whether the prior marriage had led to a valid divorce.
b. The appellant had not come up with specific cases regarding her previous marriage or divorce
The High Court concluded that the matter required trial and the petition under Section 482 of CrPC could not be entertained.
5. This judgement of the Family Court was questioned. However, in 2019, a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as no one had appeared on behalf of the second respondent in the proceedings. It was held that subsisting marriage of the appellant was still a contentious matter and the criminal complaint against the appellant was declined from being quashed.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
The Code of Criminal Procedure 19731
- Section 482- Provides High Court with inherent powers to make orders that are necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of any Court's process, or to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
India Penal Code 1860
- Section 494- Any person marrying again during the lifetime of their spouse unless the marriage is not declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be punished with imprisonment extending to seven years along with fine.
- Section 495- Any person who has committed bigamy and concealed about the former marriage from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted shall be punished with imprisonment extending to ten years along with fine.
Family Courts Act 1984
- Section 7(1)- Family Court is granted with the status of District court and thus with the jurisdiction to ascertain a person's matrimonial status.
- Section 7(2)- Family Court is granted with the jurisdiction exercisable by a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX of the CrPC, thus enabling it to collect evidence to ascertain a person's matrimonial status.
ISSUES
The issue that was before the Supreme Court was that:
- Whether the criminal complaint against the appellant can be quashed based on the findings of the Family Court under section 482 of CrPC?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. The Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra laid the relevant principle for quashing of a first information report by High Court while exercising power granted to it by CrPC’s Section 482 which are:
a. The court had to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence.
b. The Court did not require to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not.
c. It was the statutory right and duty of the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations of the FIR.
2. The inherent power of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was recognised to secure the ends of justice. However, it did not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice. Quashing of a FIR had to be an exception and a rarity rather than an ordinary rule.
3. R.P Kapur v. State of Punjab 1960 identified some categories of cases where inherent power could be exercised to quash the proceedings. One amongst them was where the allegations constituted an offence, except there was lack of legal evidence to prove the charges. In the present case, no contentious material or evidence arose in the family court to prove the bigamy of the appellant.
4. Section 7(1) and 7(2) provided the Family Court had jurisdiction to decide on the complaint filed against the appellant. The finding in the judgment of the Family Court was that the appellant did not have a subsisting marriage had attained finality and was binding inter partes. If the criminal proceeding against the appellant would have been allowed, it would constitute an abuse of the process.
CONCLUSION
Supreme Court, therefore, relied on the judgement of the Family Court and allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgement of the Gauhati High Court. The criminal proceedings against the appellant regarding bigamy was quashed and consequential relief was granted to her.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
