HARISHANKAR Vs. PRABHU DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 3/11/1987 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Soonimalwa, District Hoshangabad, discharging the accused- non-applicant for alleged offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code and dismissing the complaint. According to the complainants case, Smt. Sulekha is a legally wedded wife of the applicant. The marriage took place in the year 1982. It is then alleged that the non-applicant- accused, who has his wife Latibai alive and living with him and has also four children from her, contracted a second marriage with Sulekha wife of the present applicant on 18.3.1985, thus, constituting an offence of bigamy under Section 494 and 495 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order held that in the prosecution form the alleged offence of bigamy. Sulekha can only be the main accused and the non-applicant, who is alleged to have contracted marriage with her, cannot be made accused. He, therefore, discharged the non-applicant and dismissed the complaint.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the learned Magistrate has grossly erred in discharging the accused by misreading and misinterpreting the provisions of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Counsel appearing for the non-applicant supports the order of the Magistrate and argues that the offence of bigamy is against the other partner in the marriage and, therefore, the only accused could have been the wife of the applicant who contracted the second marriage, but, her second husband could not be accused of an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) I have carefully looked into the provisions of Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. The relevant part of which reads as: