a quashment prayer was made by a second wife, pursuant to a complaint under Section 494. At para 8, the High Court held thus:8. A perusal of the above, indicates beyond doubt that a person who can be prosecuted under Section 494 of IPC is the erring husband or wife who marries again during the lifetime of his or her spouse and during the subsistence of the marriage. The petitioner herein who was arrayed as accused No. 2 on the ground that she was the second wife of accused No. 1 could certainly not be prosecuted for an offence under Section 494 of IPC. In that view of the matter, the criminal prosecution initiated against the petitioner/accused No. 2 cannot be continued as that would result in an abuse of the process of law.”

whether a complaint under Section 494 C.P.C. is maintainable against the second wife of the erring husband or not.

1

HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.686 of 2020

FINAL ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure1by the petitioner/A.2, seeking to quash the

proceedings in C.C.No.66 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal, registered for the offence under

Section 494 I.P.C. against her.

2. This is a quash petition filed by the second wife/Accused No.2

of Accused No.1, pursuant to the complaint filed by the first wife/de

facto complainant. The short question that falls for consideration is

whether a complaint under Section 494 C.P.C. is maintainable

against the second wife of the erring husband or not.

3. Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner;

learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1/State

and Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai, learned counsel for the

respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section

494 IPC would be attracted only to a person, who marries again

during the life time of husband/wife and that it is not applicable to

1 in short ‘the Code’

2024:APHC:7093

2

the petitioner, since she was not married earlier as on the date of

the alleged marriage with Accused No.1. Learned counsel further

would submit that the cognizance can only be taken on a private

complaint in view of the bar under Section 198 of the Code.

5. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would

submit that the marriage of the defacto complainant with Accused

No.1 is his second marriage since he took divorce from his first

wife. He would submit that the marriage of Accused No.1 with the

petitioner/A.2 is his third marriage. He would also submit that in

the light of the Andhra Pradesh State Amendment to Section 494

IPC, it is a cognizable offence. To justify that the bar under Section

198 Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the present case, learned counsel

would submit that a bare perusal of the FIR would show that after

taking permission of the Court only, the case is registered and

investigated into.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a

decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court for the State of

Telangana in Shaheed Naaz v. State of Telangana.

2 The relevant

paragraph -11 is extracted hereunder:

22023 SCC OnLine TS 3536

2024:APHC:7093

3

“11. As per the contents of Section 494 of IPC, it is evident that

it attracts to a person who has married during the life time of

wife or husband. Therefore, the said offence attracts only to

Accused No.1 and not to the second wife or her family members.

Further, the contents of complaint do not attract the

petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 for the alleged offence under

Section 498-A IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the considered

opinion that it is a mere abuse of process of law for being tried

the petitioners/accused Nos.2 to 4 before the trial Court and the

proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

7. Reliance was also placed on the decision in Padmanabham

Mamidi v. State of Telangana and Ors.

3 Relevant paragraph-5 is

extracted hereunder:

“ 5. To attract an offence under Section 494 of IPC, a husband or

wife while living, marries another when such marriage would be

void by the reason of its taking place during life of such spouse,

is punishable. In the present case, it is not the case of the police

that this petitioner was already married by the time he married

A1 on 12.08.2018. A person who is single marrying another

whose marriage is subsisting is not liable under Section 494 of

IPC, but the person whose marriage is subsisting would be

liable. Even accepting that A1’s marriage was subsisting, the

offence under Section 494 of IPC is not made out against the

petitioner herein.”

(Emphasis supplied)

8. At this juncture, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2

would submit that the petitioner having knowledge that it is third

3. 2023 (1) ALD (Crl.) 981

2024:APHC:7093

4

marriage to A.1 married him and thereby abetted him for

commission of the act of bigamy. This argument of the learned

counsel cannot be of any help in the present proceedings as the

quash petition before this Court is in connection to the offence

punishable under Section 494 I.P.C. Moreover, neither the

complaint nor the charge sheet contains averments as to such

abetment.

9. A bare perusal of the Section 494 makes it clear that its

opening words indicate “whoever, having a husband or wife living”

commits bigamy as provided therein, and in the later half to fix

liability states “such husband or wife”, expressing the intention of

the Legislature to prosecute the erring husband/wife, as the case

maybe. This Court agrees with the interpretation given in similar

circumstances in Shaheed Naaz (supra) and Padmanabham

Mamidi (supra) and would also find it relevant to refer the ruling of

the High Court of Karnataka in Smt. Revathi v. Smt. Netravathi

4,

wherein a quashment prayer was made by a second wife, pursuant

to a complaint under Section 494. At para 8, the High Court held

thus:

42023:KHC:28037

2024:APHC:7093

5

“8. A perusal of the above, indicates beyond doubt that a

person who can be prosecuted under Section 494 of IPC is

the erring husband or wife who marries again during the

lifetime of his or her spouse and during the subsistence of

the marriage. The petitioner herein who was arrayed as

accused No. 2 on the ground that she was

the second wife of accused No. 1 could certainly not be

prosecuted for an offence under Section 494 of IPC. In that

view of the matter, the criminal prosecution initiated

against the petitioner/accused No. 2 cannot be continued

as that would result in an abuse of the process of law.”

(Emphasis supplied)

10. In that view of the matter and in the light of the aforesaid

legal position and the factual circumstances, the petitioner herein

who is the second wife of Accused No.1 cannot be prosecuted for the

offence under Section 494 as it would amount to abuse of process of

law.

11. In result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the

proceedings against the Petitioner/Accused No.2 in C.C.No.66 of

2020 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Nandyal.

As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

04.01.2024

Mjl /*

L.R. copy to be marked.

2024:APHC:7093

6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

* * * *

Crl.P. No. 686 of 2020

Between:

B.Prameela D/o.Narayana,

Aged about 39 years, R/o.Krishna Nagar,

Kurnool town, Kurnool District.

.....Petitioner/Accused No.2

AND

1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Represented by Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh,

At Amaravathi.

2. Kundvaram Amurtha Bindu,

W/o.M.D.Amrutha Raju,

Aged about 39 years, R/o.Gnanapuram, Nandyal Town,

Kurnool District.

.....Respondents

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 04.01.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL

HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers

may be allowed to see the Judgments ? Yes/No

2. Whether copies of Judgment may be

marked to Law Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the

fair copy of the Judgment ? Yes/No

 _____________________________________

 VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J

2024:APHC:7093

7

* HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA

+ Crl.P. No. 686 of 2020

% 04.01.2024

Between:

# B.Prameela D/o.Narayana,

Aged about 39 years, R/o.Krishna Nagar,

Kurnool town, Kurnool District.

.....Petitioner/Accused No.2

Versus

$ 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

Represented by Public Prosecutor,

High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh,

At Amaravathi.

2. Kundvaram Amurtha Bindu,

W/o.M.D.Amrutha Raju,

Aged about 39 years, R/o.Gnanapuram, Nandyal Town,

Kurnool District.

.....Respondents

! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V.Nitesh

 ^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Learned Assistant

 Public Prosecutor

 Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai

< Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred:

1. 2023 SCC OnLine TS 3536

2. 2023(1) ALD (Crl.) 981

3. 2023:KHC:28037

2024:APHC:7093