In a significant ruling by the High Court of Kerala, the criminal proceedings against the appellants, Lumina B and Saneesh, have been quashed in the case involving Flory Lopez and others. The court highlighted the lack of essential ingredients of the offense under Section 494 IPC in the complaint and upheld the appeal. Let’s delve into the details of this crucial judgment by the Supreme Court of India.
Facts
- Ms. Lumina married Saneesh under the Special Marriage Act in 2010 before the Marriage Officer, Nemom.
- Accused No.3- Flory Lopez, Accused No.4- Vimal Jacob, Accused No.5- S. Nitheen, Accused No.6- P.R. Sreejith, Accused No.7- H. Gireesh are involved in the case.
- Complainant Mr. Reynar Lopez married Ms. Lumina in 2007 in a Christian ceremony.
- The appellants filed a Criminal Revision Petition and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, which were dismissed.
- Charges were framed against the appellants under Section 494 IPC.
- The High Court of Kerala passed a final judgment on the case in July 2019.
- The High Court rejected the petition of the appellants seeking to quash the proceedings in the Criminal Case.
- Accused No.1 is Lumina B, accused No.2 is Saneesh.
- The appeals in this case have been decided together.
- The learned JMFC passed an order on May 28, 2018, directing framing of charge against all the accused persons for the offense punishable under Section 494 IPC.
Also Read: Complainant vs. Accused: Supreme Court Judgement on Fraudulent Land Deal
Arguments
- Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC are lacking in the case presented by the complainant.
- Witnesses examined did not mention the presence of the appellants at the time of the marriage.
- Appellants Vimal Jacob and Flory Lopez were not mentioned to be present during the marriage.
- Accused S. Nitheen, P.R. Sreejith, and H. Gireesh are friends of the couple and were witnesses at the church marriage.
- No evidence shows that the three accused knew about Lumina’s previous marriage.
- In the absence of evidence, the accused cannot be charged for the offences under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC.
- Counsel urged the Court to accept the appeals and quash the impugned orders and proceedings against the appellants.
- Mr. Alim Anvar vehemently opposed the submissions made by the appellants’ counsel.
- He argued that the appellants who were friends of the main parties participated in the bigamous marriage and should be prosecuted for the offense of bigamy.
- Mr. Alim Anvar also stated that the appellants who were blood relatives of one of the main parties did not prevent the bigamous marriage and should be prosecuted as well.
- He urged the Court to dismiss the appeals based on these arguments.
- The Court carefully considered the submissions and reviewed the relevant documents and statements.
Also Read: Quashing of FIR No. 590 of 2019: Barkat Ali v. State of Chhattisgarh
Analysis
- The complaint alleged the offence under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC, but lacks any allegation that the accused had knowledge of the existing marriage
- No accusation that the accused witnesses had awareness of Lumina’s existing marriage
- The complainant did not seek prosecution of the appellants under Section 109 IPC for abetting Lumina’s second marriage
- The High Court upheld the order quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 494 IPC against the accused.
- The Court mentioned that the other parties involved were unnecessarily and vexatiously included in the case.
- The essential elements of the offense under Section 494 IPC were discussed, referring to the case of Gopal Lal v. State of Rajasthan.
- The order framing charge and rejecting the revision petition do not stand scrutiny.
- It cannot be assumed that the accused facilitated a second marriage with knowledge of the earlier marriage.
- The accused had stated that the second respondent was functions as a governess, implying they are living together.
- Allegations against respondents 3 to 7 lack supporting material and do not justify continuation of proceedings against them.
- Continuing the proceedings against the appellants would amount to gross illegality and abuse of the court process.
Also Read: Contract Chaos: Municipal Committee Katra vs. Ashwani Kumar Battle in Court
Decision
- The order dated 3 July, 2019 passed by the High Court and all subsequent proceedings against the appellants in Criminal Case No 791 of 2013 have been quashed and set aside.
- Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
- The trial of Ms. Lumina (A-1) and Saneesh (A-2) will continue.
- The appeals have been allowed with no order as to costs.
Case Title: S. NITHEEN Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA (2024 INSC 420)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002585-002585 – 2024
