Mere knowledge about second marriage not enough to sustain bigamy charges against in-laws: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said mere knowledge of the second marriage without any overt act, suggesting active participation or facilitation, or encouragement was not enough to sustain the charge of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih set aside the Kerala High Court's judgment of November 25, 2024 which declined to quash the FIR lodged against inlaws of a woman in Museum police station in Thiruvananthapuram in 2016 under Sections 494 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

"While it has been alleged that the accused-appellants were aware of the second marriage, mere knowledge that an act is being or has been committed by another person does not, by itself, establish the requisite common intention. Even proceeding on the basis that the accused-appellants were aware of the second marriage, there is no allegation, let alone any material, to suggest that they actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the solemnisation of that marriage,'' the bench said.

In the case, the bench found the complaint was primarily against the accused husband regarding physical assault, demand of dowry and mental torture.

The allegations against the accused-appellants however are less of that of active involvement and are mostly that of them being present or encouraging the harassment meted out by the accused husband, the court noted.

"The FIR does not attribute to them any specific act of demand, threat, or physical assault on any identifiable occasion,'' the bench noted.  

The allegations consisted of general statements of presence and encouragement rather than specific acts that individually constitute the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC, the bench said.

The court also noted, the High Court relied upon the statement of a witness to infer knowledge with regard to second marriage on the part of the accused-appellants. 

However, such inferential knowledge, without more, is insufficient to satisfy the threshold established in S Nitheen and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another (2024) which requires evidence of an overt act or omission, the court pointed out.