MUSSTT REHANA BEGUM versus STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 962 · Decided: 21-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
962
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
[2022] 3 S.C.R. 962
962
MUSSTT REHANA BEGUM
v.
STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 118 of 2022)
JANUARY 21, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
BELA M TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Penal Code,
1860 – ss.494, 495 – Appellant-wife filed application u/s.482 for
quashing the complaint filed by second respondent-husband u/
ss.494 and 495, IPC – Dismissed by Single Judge – On appeal,
held: As between the appellant and the second respondent the issue
as to whether she had a subsisting marriage on the date on which
she entered into a marriage with him is the subject matter of a
conclusive finding of the Principal Judge of the Family Court which
has attained finality – Appellant and the second respondent were
parties to the decision of the Family Court – No contentious material
or disputed issues of evidence arise – Thus, allowing the criminal
proceeding to proceed for an offence u/ss. 494 and 495, IPC would
constitute an abuse of the process – Single Judge of the High Court
was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the issue as to
whether the appellant had a subsisting prior marriage was a ‘highly
contentious matter’ which has to be tried on the basis of the evidence
on the record – Impugned judgment set aside – Criminal Petition
filed by the appellant for quashing the complaint is allowed –
Complaint quashed – Family Courts Act, 1984 – s.7(1).
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing –
Types of materials High Court can assess – Distinction between
consideration of materials tendered as evidence and appreciation
of such evidence – Discussed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Family Courts
Act, 1984 – s.7(1)– Held: Explanation (b) to s.7(1), 1984 Act confers
the Family Court with jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status
of a person – s.7(1) grants a Family Court with the status of a
District Court and s.7(2) confers it with jurisdiction exercisable by
a Magistrate of the first class under Chapter IX of the CrPC, thus
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
963
enabling to collect evidence to make such a determination – Thus,
relying on the judgement of the Family Court which has jurisdiction
to decide the gravamen of the offence alleged in the criminal
complaint, would not be same as relying on evidentiary materials
that are due for appreciation by the Trial Court, such as the
investigation report before it is forwarded to the Magistrate.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The gravamen of the complaint which has been
lodged by the second respondent is that on 11 January 1996,
when he and the appellant entered into marriage, the appellant
had a prior subsisting marriage as a consequence of which she is
guilty of an offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC. From
the record which has been produced before the Court, it emerges
that the appellant moved the Family Court for seeking a
declaration that the divorce which was pronounced by the second
respondent was null and void under Muslim law. In his written
statement, the second respondent specifically supported the
purported talaq and the divorce certificate issued by the Sadar
Kazi under the Muslim personal law. In the additional written
statement, the second respondent took the plea that the appellant
did not disclose to him that she had a prior marriage with another
person which was solemnized on 11 June 1987. Evidence was
adduced before the Family Court. The second respondent
deposed before the Family Court. The Principal Judge of the
Family Court at Guwahati, by a judgment dated 20 July 2017,
issued a declaration that the divorce which was purportedly
granted by the second respondent to her is null and void. The
said judgment clearly shows that whether (i) the appellant had a
prior subsisting marriage with another person; and (ii) the second
respondent had obtained a valid divorce was in issue before the
Family Court. The finding of fact as between the appellant and
the second respondent is that the appellant did not have a
subsisting prior marriage when she married him. The judgment
of the Family Court was questioned in MAT Appeal No 47 of
2017. A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal
for non-prosecution on 20 June 2019, having noted that on the
previous occasion on 27 May 2019, no one had appeared on behalf
MUSSTT REHANA BEGUM v. STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
964
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
of the second respondent in those p

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.