Holding

The scope of enquiry under Section 202 CrPC is confined to ascertaining a prima facie case; it cannot evaluate the sufficiency of evidence for conviction, and the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the complaint.

Summary

The appellant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that his brother‑in‑law, Darshan Singh, had contracted a second marriage while his first marriage to Jagjit Kaur was still subsisting, thereby committing bigamy under IPC s.494 and abetment under s.109. The magistrate, after recording statements under CrPC s.202, was prima facie satisfied and issued process against eight accused. The accused filed petitions under CrPC s.482 seeking quash of the proceedings; the High Court quashed the complaint, holding it did not allege a bigamous marriage. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the enquiry under s.202 is limited to ascertaining whether a prima facie case exists and cannot assess the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. It further held that the complaint did allege the second marriage, and the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction. The Court set aside the quash order except against two respondents for whom no material existed, allowing the trial to proceed.

Issues considered

Whether the enquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC may go beyond determining a prima facie case to assess the sufficiency of evidence for conviction.
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC on the ground that the complaint did not disclose an offence of bigamy.
Whether the complaint sufficiently alleged the performance of a second marriage constituting an offence under Section 494 IPC.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 202, s. 203, s. 204, s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 494

Subjects

Section 202 CrPCSection 482 CrPCbigamyprima facie casequash of criminal proceedingsevidence sufficiencyabettormarriage

Judgment

A MOHINDER SINGH
v.
GULWANT SINGH AND ORS. ETC.

DECEMBER 17, 1991

B [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND
YOGESHWAR DAY AL, JJ .]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

Section 202-Scope and Nature of enquiry-Magistrate only to be sat-
e isfied if a prima facie case exists-Offence of bigamy--Court going into suf-
ficiency of evidence for convictio~eld the court exceeded its scope of
enquiry.

Section 482-High Courl-lnherent powers-Power to quash criminal
D proceedings-Scope of.

The appellant filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jullundhar against the respondents alleging that while the matrimonial tie
between his sister and his brother-in-law were subsisting, his brother-in-
law performed a second marriage and committed the offence of bigamy
E while the other respondents abetted and assisted the second marriage. The
Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded the statements of the complainant and
other witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
on being prima facie satisfied that the offence punishable under sections
494 and 109 of the IPC was made out, issued process to the respondents.

F The respondents-accused filed petitions in the High Court under
Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings
against them. The High Court allowed the petitions and quashed the
appellant's complaint by holding that the complaint does not show an
offence under Section 494 IPC.
-
G In the appeal to this court, counsel for the respondents admitted the
second marriage of appellant's brother-in-law but denied the alleged first
marriage between appellant's sister and appellant's brother-in-law.

Setting aside the order of the High Court and allowing the appeals
--
(Criminal Appeal No. 794/91 in part), this Court,
H

478
MOHINDER v. GULWANT 479

HELD: -t. The scope of enquiry under Section 202 of the Code .of A
•/ 'l-i Criminal Procedure is extremely restricted only to finding out the truth or
otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in order to determine
whether process should issue or not under Section 204 of the Code_ or
whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203 of
the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
on the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if B
any. But the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full
dress trial which can only take place after process is issued under Section
-· 2()4 of the Code calling upon the proposed accused to answer the accusa-
tion made against him for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said
accused'\ person. [482.G-H,
. 483-A]
'
c
Further, the question whether the evidence is adequate for support-
ing the conviction can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage
of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code. During the
course of the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer
has to satisfy himself simply on the evidence addµced by the prosecution
whether prima facie case has been made out so as to put the proposed D
accused on a regular trial and that no detailed enquiry is called for during
the course of such enquiry. [483 A-B]

Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Ors.,
(1976] 3 SCC 736; Vadilal Panchal v. Dattatraya Dulaji Ghadi~
ganoker and Anr., [1961] 1SCR1; Pramatha Nath Talukdar v.
E
Saroj Ranjan, AIR 1962 SC 876-(1962] 2 SCC 297, referred to.

2. In the instant case, the Court exceeded the scope of the enquiry
.. contemplated under Section 202 of the Code by going into the question of
sufficiency of evidence for conviction of the offence of bigamy. Further, in F
view of the admission made by the counsel for the respondents admitting
the second marriage the conclusion arrived at by the court in the im-
pugned order that the complaint does not contain any allegation of the
-I performance of the marriage cannot be sustained and is accordingly set
aside. (483 C-D]
G
3. There is no suffick nt material for proceedings against respon-
dents-accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the complaint as having abetted the offence
of bigamy, though there is sufficient ground as against the rest of the
,-
respondents. Accordingly the impugned order of the High Court quashing
the complaint against respondents, other than respondents 4 and 5, is set
aside. [483 F-H] H
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991) SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

A Stateo/Karnataka v.LMuniswamyandOrs.• AIR 1977SC 1489,
held inapplicable.

Shanti Deb Berma v. Smt. Kanchan Prava Devi, AIR 1991 SC
816, cited.

B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 794
of 1991.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.1991 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc, No. 3434-M of 1991 (0 & M).

C S.S. Chadda and R.S. Sodhi for the Appellant.

Pawan Kr. Bansal and K.V. Mohan for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

D ORDER

Leave granted in both cases.·

These two appeals arise out of a common order passed by the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana in Crl. M.P. Nos. 3434-M/91 and 3436-M/91 dated
E 17.5.91 whereby the High Court allowed these two petitions filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Code) and quashed the complaint filed by the appellant herein and all the
subsequent proceedings arising thereon.

F The appellant who is the brother of Jagjit Kaur filed a complaint before
the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Jullunder alleging that while the
matrimonial tie between Darshan Singh and his sister Jagjit Kaur is still
subsisting, Darshan Singh performed a second marriage with Mohinder Pal and
the respondents in both the appeals abetted and assisted the second marriage.

G The Chief Judicial Magistrate took the statements of the complainant and
three other witnesses including Jagjit Kaur under Section 202 of the Code. Of
the witnesses examined, apart from the complainant and Jagjit Kaur, one was
to prove the first marriage and the other was to prove the second marriage of
Darshan Singh with Mohinder Pal. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on
being prima f acie satisfied that the offence of bigamy punishable under
H Sections 494 and 494 read with 1()1) IPC is made out, issued process by his
MOHINDER v. GULWANT 481

order dated 14.2.91 to all the eight accused arrayed in the complaint of whom A
seven are the respondents herein barring Darshan Singh (A-1) who was not a
party in the proceedings initiated under Section 482 Crl. P.C., and directed all
the accused to appear before him on 20.3.91.

All the respondents/accused herein, without appearing before the CJM
approached the High Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code
praying to quash the proceedings as against them. It may be noted here that in B
Criminal Appeal No. 794 of 1991 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2810/91), the
respondents before the High Court were accused Nos. 2 to 5. In Criminal
Appeal No. 795 of 1991 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2784/91), the respon-
dents were accused Nos. 6 to 8, namely Mohinder Pal and her parents. The
High Court for the reasons given in its impugned order finally concluded as
follows:
c
"Since there is no allegation of performance of lavans in the
presence of Sri Guru Grant Sahib, amidst the chanting of hymns
composed by Sri Guru Ram Dass Ji, the impugned complaint does
not contain any allegation of the performance of the first marriage
of Jagjit Kaur with Darshan Singh and of the second marriage of D
Mohinder Pal with Darshan Singh. The impugned complaint, thus,
does not show the commission of the offence under Section 494
IPC."

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant strenuously
contended that the marriage of Darshan Singh with Jagjit Kaur is a legally valid E
one and that Darshan Singh, while his marital tie with Jagjit Kaur is united and
still validly subsisting, has performed the second marriage with Mohinder Pal
and thereby Darshan Singh has committed; the offence of bigamy. In proof of
the second marriage of Darshan Singh with Mohinder Pal, he heavily relied
upon the document Exh. PW-2/1.
F
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the re-spondcnts while fairly
admitting the marriage between Darshan Singh and Mohinder Pal has denied
only the marriage of Darshan Singh with Jagjit Kaur and added .that he is not
challenging the validity of the marriage of Darshan Singh with Mohinder Pal.
Further, he has stated that it is true that an engagement did take place on
31.1.82 as regards the marriage proposal ofDarshan Singh with Jagjit Kaur but G
no marriage was solemnised as per the Sikh rites in pursuance of the said
. engagement since Jagjit Kuar had left India to England. According to him,
Jagjit Kaur has not mentioned the alleged fact of her marriage in her passport
and that this very fact indicates that no marriage of Jagjit Kaur with Darshan
Singh was solemnised. H
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

A Both the learned counsel have cited certain decisions of this Court in
support of their respective cases. Mr. S.S.Chadda, learned counsel for the
appellant in support of his submission that the enquiry under Section 202 of the
""''
Code is extremely restricted, drew our attention to the decision of this Court
in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others, [1976) 3
sec 736 wherein the following dictum has been laid down:
B
"It would thus be clear from lhe two decisions of this Court that the
scope of the inquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure is extremely limited-limited only to the ascertainment of ·
the truth or falsehood of the allegations made in the complaint-(i)
on the materials placed by the complainant before the Court; (ii)
c for the limited purpo~e of finding out whether a prima facie case
for issue of process has been made out; (iii) for deciding the
question purely from the point of view of the complainant without
at all adverting to any defence that the accused may have."

Learned counsel for the respondents strongly relied upon the decision of
D this Court in State of Karnataka v. L.Muniswamy and Others, [1977) 3 SCC
113 wherein Chandrachud, J (as he then was) has pointed out that in the '!
exercise of the wholesome power under Section 482 of the Code corresponding
to Section 561 (A) of the Code of 1898 "the High Court is entitled to quash a.
proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to
E continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of
justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed".

The decision in Muniswamy' s case, in our view, cannot be availed of by ,_.
the respondents because that decision was. rendered by this Court while
examining the powers of the Sessions Court to frame appropriate charges as
F warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.

This Court as well as various High Courts in a catena of decisions have
examined the gamut and significance of Section 202 of the Code and settled the
principle of law, the substance of which is as follows:

G The scope of enquiry under Section 202 is extremely restricted only to
finding out the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the complaint in
order to determine whether precess should issue or not under Section 204 of the
Code or whether the complaint should be dismissed by resorting to Section 203
of the Code on the footing that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding on
the basis of the statements of the complainant and of his witnesses, if any. But
H the enquiry at that stage does not partake the character of a full dress trial

' .
MOHil".lDER v. GULWANf 483

which can only take place after process is issued under Section 204 of the Code A
calling upon the proposed accused to answt:r the accusation made against him
for adjudging the guilt or otherwise of the said accused person. Further, the
question whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the· conviction can be
determined only at the trial and not at the stage of the enquiry contemplated
under Section 202 of the Code. To say in other words, during the course of the
enquiry"under Seeton 202 of the Code, the enquiry officer has to satisfy himself B
simply on the evidence adduced by the prosecution whether lJ..rim..a facie case
has been made out so as to put the proposed accused on a regu"W-trial and that
no detailed enquiry is called for during the course of such enquiry. Vide Vadilal
Panchal v.DattatrayaDulaji Ghadigaonker and Another, [1961) 1SCR1 and
Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan, {1962) 2 SCC 297.

In the present case, the High Court appears to have exceeded the scope
c
of the enquiry contemplated under Section 202 of the Code and has gone into
the question of sufficiency of evidence for conviction of the offence of bigamy.
Further, in view of the admission made by the learned counsel for the
respondents admitting before us the marriage of Darshan Singh with Mohinder
Pal the conclusion arrived at by tlie Court in the impugned order that the D
complaint does not contain any allegation of the performance of the marriage
of Mohinder Pal with Darshan cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.

Lastly relying on a decision of this Court in Shanti Deb Berma v. Smt.
Kanchan Prava Devi, AIR 1991 SC 816 to which one of us (S. Ratnavel .
Pandian, J) was a party, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the E
respondents that in the absence of an allegation that the marriage of Darshan
Singh with J agjit Kaur was celebrated in accordance with the customs dispens-
ing with the requisite ceremonies and usage applicable to the parties, the
alleged first marriage should be held to have been not proved in the eye of law.
This submission is not available to him at this stage because that can be
determined only at the stage of the trial of the case. F
However, on a thorough examination of the materials placed before us,
we are of the view that there is no sufficient material for proceedings as against
Lal Singh and Charanjit Kaur who are arrayed as accused Nos. 4 and 5 in the
...... complaint as having abetted the offence of bigamy, though there is sufficient
ground as against the rest of the respondents. G
In the result, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court so far
as the respondents other than respondents 3 and 4 in SLP No. 2810/91 are
concerned and direct the trial court to proceed with the case and expeditiously
dispose of ~he same on the merits o°f the case without being influenced by any
of the observations made by us in justification of this order. · H
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 3 S. C.R.

A Criminal Appeal No. 795 of 1991 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2784/
91 is allowed in its entirety and Criminal Appeal No. 794/91 (arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No. 2810/91) is allowed only in respect of Gulwant Singh and
Balbir Kaur respondents 1 and 2 and dismissed in respect of Lal Singh and
Charanjit Kaur.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

' ....