In a significant legal ruling, the Kalaburagi bench of the Karnataka High Court has clarified the procedure for initiating proceedings in bigamy cases. The court held that a magistrate is not empowered to take cognisance of the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based solely on a police report, as it is a non-cognisable offence.
Court Quashes Proceedings Against Businessman and Family
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum delivered the judgment while quashing the charge-sheet and all subsequent legal proceedings against a businessman named Neelakanteshwar and his family members, who are residents of Yadgir taluk and district. The case originated from a private complaint filed by his wife, Tanuja, a resident of Raichur.
Tanuja's complaint alleged both cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC and bigamy against her husband. The magistrate, instead of recording her sworn statement as required by law, mechanically referred the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The police, after investigation, filed a charge-sheet but dropped the cruelty charge (498A), proceeding only under the bigamy section (494).
Legal Flaw in the Referral Process
Challenging the proceedings, Neelakanteshwar's legal team argued that the initial referral to police was itself illegal. They contended that since bigamy under Section 494 IPC is a non-cognisable offence, the magistrate could not have directed a police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC for that charge alone.
Justice Magadum agreed with this assessment. The court noted that while the magistrate's initial referral was technically valid because the complaint included Section 498A (a cognisable offence), the situation changed fundamentally when the police filed a charge-sheet exclusively for the non-cognisable offence of bigamy.
The judge pointed out that the nature of the wife's private complaint showed she sought only a police referral, which the magistrate was not authorised to grant for an offence exclusively triable upon a formal complaint. "The reference made under Section 156(3) of CrPC in respect of a non-cognisable offence falling under Chapter XX of the IPC is, therefore, without jurisdiction, illegal, and void," the court stated.
Police Report Cannot Substitute a Complaint
The judgment elaborated on a critical procedural distinction. It ruled that a final report (charge-sheet) filed by police under Section 173 of CrPC cannot be treated as a 'complaint' under Section 198(2) of CrPC for the offence of bigamy. The equivalence between a police report and a complaint is permitted only in specific scenarios defined by law, and bigamy is not one of them.
Consequently, the magistrate's act of taking cognisance of the offence based on the police charge-sheet was a clear violation of Section 198(1) of CrPC. The charge-sheet filed following the illegal referral was also deemed invalid. Justice Magadum quashed the entire proceedings against the petitioners as a result of these fundamental legal errors.
However, the court clarified that its order does not prevent the complainant wife from pursuing other legal remedies available under the Criminal Procedure Code. The door remains open for her to approach the court through the correct procedural channel if she chooses to do so.
This ruling reinforces the strict procedural safeguards built into the law for prosecuting non-cognisable offences like bigamy, ensuring that the process itself adheres to the principles of due legal process.
