Justice Rajnesh Oswal made this observation while dismissing a petition challenging the issuance of trial in a case involving alleged offenses under Sections 494, 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case was rooted in a complaint by the respondent Kanchan Devi, who alleged that her husband, Kali Dass, had remarried without legally dissolving their existing marriage. Devi alleged that Dass’s family members petitioners in the case were complicit in facilitating the second marriage, which was allegedly solemnized at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jammu.

The respondent stated that she was initially informed about the second marriage by the family members and on further inquiries at the Arya Samaj Mandir, she obtained supporting documents to support her claim.

Following his complaint, the magistrate issued a case against the petitioners under sections 494 (bigamy), 109 (abetment) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC. The petitioners sought to set aside this order, contending that there were no specific allegations against them in the complaint and contending that the Magistrate issued the order mechanically, without proper application of mind.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent submitted that a prima facie case has been made out and that the petitioners are an integral part of the alleged conspiracy. They added that detailed reasoning was not required at the stage of issuing the suit, arguing that the allegations warranted a trial where the evidence could be fully examined.

Justice Oswal meticulously went through the case documents, particularly the allegations against the petitioners. The Court held that the respondent pleaded a conspiracy in which Dass’s family members, including the petitioners, supported and facilitated the second marriage, fully aware that it violated the law.

The Court observed that though there is no requirement for a detailed formal order at the time of issuing a suit under Sections 190 and 204 CPC, the Magistrate must still show sufficient evidence of having applied the judicial mind to the facts presented.

Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mehmood Ul Rehman Vs. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others”, (2015) which held that the application of mind is essential at this stage, even though explicit reasoning is not mandatory, Justice Oswal noted,

“.. No formal or verbal or reasoned order is required at the stage provided in Section 190/204 Cr. CP, but there must be sufficient indications regarding the application of the mind by the Magistrate when issuing the process against the accused”.

The court added,

“The learned magistrate recorded his satisfaction as to the commission of the offense and issued the process against the petitioners, though it is true that no detailed reasons are mentioned in the order, which otherwise need not be recorded in the order for the issue of the process.”

In addition, the Court resorted to Mohd. Allauddin Khan vs State of Bihar 2019where the Supreme Court cautioned against appreciating evidence in the initial stages. The Court emphasized that the determination of whether petitioners encouraged the alleged bigamy is a question of fact to be resolved at trial, not at the issue stage. Issues of evidence and credibility should be reserved for trial and cannot be prematurely assessed under section 482 CrPC, the court stated and reiterated,

“In our view, the High Court had no jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence of the proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) as there are contradictions and/or inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses is essentially an issue related to the evaluation of the evidence and the same can be addressed by the Judicial Magistrate during the trial, when all the evidence is presented by the parties”

With these observations, the High Court upheld the process issued by the Magistrate and rejected the application.

Case Title: Beero Devi Vs Kanchan Devi

Reference: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 303

Click here to read/download the Judgment