The Karnataka High Court holds that an offence of Bigamy applies only against the erring spouse, one can’t prosecute other family members.

The Karnataka High has partially allowed a criminal petition seeking quashing of the proceedings pending for offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 496, 498A and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner/accused along with his family members. The said private complaint proceedings were initiated by the father of the second woman whom the petitioner/accused had married, allegedly not disclosing the fact of his being already married. The trial Court referred the case under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and for report, based upon which the police noticing that cognizable offence is made out, registered an FIR for the aforesaid offences and took up the investigation.
 
The Court held that:
 
"The question whether accused No.1 had disclosed his marital status to respondent No.2 and his daughter before the marriage, is a fact that has to be established by accused No.1 before the trial Court."
 
“In so far as the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, except the assertion in the private complaint that accused Nos.2 and 3 had compelled respondent No.2 to part with money to purchase properties in the name of accused No.1, there is no clear evidence and therefore, it is improper at this stage to involve the said accused in the investigation. However, in the event of a charge sheet being filed against accused No.1 and in the event of affirmative evidence being led in before the trial Court about the involvement of the other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 420 or Section 34 of IPC, liberty deserves to be reserved in favour of the prosecution to prosecute the other accused by making appropriate application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. In that view of the matter, the investigation launched against other accused family members of the accused deserves to be halted for the present.”

Srinivas Sagar & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Anr