Court clarifies scope of liability under IPC provisions, holds active participation is necessary to implicate family members in bigamy offences
The Supreme Court has held that mere knowledge of a second marriage is not enough to implicate the husband’s relatives in a bigamy case.
The Court reiterated that criminal liability requires specific allegations. A complaint must show active involvement, participation, instigation, or facilitation of the alleged offence.
The case concerned prosecution under provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to bigamy.
The complaint alleged that the husband had contracted a second marriage while his first marriage was still subsisting.
The complainant sought to prosecute not only the husband, but also his family members.
According to the complainant, the relatives knew about the second marriage and supported it.
The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether such knowledge alone could justify criminal proceedings against the husband’s relatives.
The Court examined whether passive awareness of the alleged second marriage could attract criminal liability under the relevant IPC provisions.
During the hearing, the complainant argued that the relatives had knowledge of the second marriage.
It was contended that this knowledge showed shared culpability.
On the other hand, the relatives argued that criminal law requires clear and specific allegations.
They submitted that a complaint must show participation, instigation, or facilitation of the alleged offence. Mere passive awareness, they argued, cannot create criminal liability.
The Supreme Court observed that offences relating to bigamy require strict proof of all essential ingredients under law.
The Court emphasised that criminal liability cannot extend to relatives only because they knew about the second marriage.
It noted that a complaint must allege an active role against each accused person.
The Court held that vague and omnibus allegations against family members cannot sustain criminal prosecution.
It said courts must carefully scrutinise complaints in such cases.
Only those persons against whom the complainant attributes specific roles should face trial.
The Court observed that, without allegations of aiding, abetting, or facilitating the second marriage, proceedings against relatives would amount to misuse of legal process.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the criminal proceedings against the husband’s relatives.
The Court held that the complaint did not make out any case against them.
However, it left the case against the husband undisturbed.
The proceedings against the husband will continue in accordance with law.
