Saptapadi Need Not Be Proved at Summoning Stage in Bigamy Cases, Holds Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed a Section 482 quashing plea, holding that whether essential marriage ceremonies were performed is a matter of trial, not a threshold for summoning in a bigamy complaint under Section 494 IPC.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital has declined to quash a summoning order and a revisional order in a bigamy prosecution, holding that proof of the Saptapadi ceremony is not a precondition for issuing summons under Section 494 of the IPC. Justice Siddhartha Sah, sitting singly, dismissed Criminal Misc. Application No. 1176 of 2021 filed by the accused Kharak Singh Dhapola under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Neelaveni v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Others, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 607, to hold that whether essential ceremonies of marriage were performed is a question that falls for determination at trial — not at the cognizance or summoning stage.

The Complaint and the Route to the High Court

The matter originated from a criminal complaint filed by Smt. Sarojini Dhapola — respondent no. 2 — against her husband, Kharak Singh Dhapola, alleging that he contracted a second marriage on 04.07.2010 while his first marriage with her, solemnised on 07.03.1988, was subsisting. The complaint was filed under Sections 494 and 504 of the IPC read with Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The complainant was examined under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Haldwani, District Nainital. A report from Thana Mukhani, District Nainital, was also summoned by the Trial Court. On the basis of the complainant's statement, the Judicial Magistrate issued a summoning order dated 04.08.2016, summoning the accused under Sections 494 and 504 IPC in Criminal Case No. 2019 of 2015.

The accused challenged that summoning order by filing a Criminal Revision before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital. That revision was dismissed by order dated 07.08.2021. The accused then approached the Uttarakhand High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking to quash both the summoning order of 04.08.2016 and the revisional order of 07.08.2021, along with all proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani.

The Legal Conflict: Two High Courts, Opposing Views

The sole question before Justice Siddhartha Sah was whether, at the stage of summoning, a complainant must prove that the essential ceremonies of marriage — specifically the Saptapadi — were performed, or whether that is a matter to be determined at trial.

Counsel for the applicant argued that no offence under Section 494 IPC is made out unless the second marriage was solemnised with proper ceremonies and in due form, with Saptapadi being an essential ingredient of a valid Hindu marriage. He relied on the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Nisha v. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2024 SCC Online All. 1462. Paragraph 12 of that judgment, which the applicant's counsel specifically highlighted, recorded that the absence of any averment regarding Saptapadi in the complaint or in statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. meant that no prima facie offence was made out against the accused, and the basic ingredients of Section 494 IPC were lacking.

Counsel for respondent no. 2 took a contrary position. He relied on two authorities. The first was the Delhi High Court's decision in Pooja Sharma Bajaj v. Kunal Bajaj and Others, reported in (2024) SCC OnLine Del 38, which had in turn placed reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in K. Neelaveni v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Others, (2010) 11 SCC 607. The Delhi High Court had held that it would be a cumbersome burden on a woman to be required to prove every ceremony of her husband's second marriage even before summons are issued, particularly where the second marriage may have been conducted in secrecy.

Paragraphs 54 to 57 of Pooja Sharma Bajaj, as extracted by the Uttarakhand High Court, addressed this concern directly. The Delhi High Court had observed that “the inability of one partner to prove performance of saptapadi by the other partner while marrying for the second time during subsistence of first marriage, at the stage of summoning itself, especially when the other partner may have solemnised such marriage with the third person in secrecy, should not be exploited as a clever tactic to circumvent the legal consequences of committing offence of bigamy.”

The Supreme Court in K. Neelaveni had held that while considering an application for quashing, the truthfulness or otherwise of allegations is not to be gone into at that stage, and that whether essential ceremonies of marriage were performed or not is always a matter of trial.

How the Court Resolved the Conflict

Justice Siddhartha Sah acknowledged the conflict squarely. On one side stood the Allahabad High Court's position in Nisha, which required proof of Saptapadi even at the summoning stage. On the other stood the Delhi High Court's position in Pooja Sharma Bajaj, supported by the Supreme Court in K. Neelaveni, which treated the question of essential ceremonies as one for trial.

The court chose to follow the Supreme Court's position. A reading of paragraphs 14 and 15 of K. Neelaveni made clear that whether essential ceremonies of marriage were performed is a matter of trial. Accordingly, the court held that the Saptapadi ceremony, being one of the essential ceremonies of marriage, would fall for consideration by the Trial Court during trial and could not be gone into at the primary stage of taking cognizance.

The court held that the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant did not find favour and that the contentions raised on behalf of respondent no. 2 were correct. No error was found in the summoning order dated 04.08.2016 or in the revisional judgment dated 07.08.2021 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital. No interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was called for.

Outcome

The Criminal Misc. Application filed by Kharak Singh Dhapola under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on 31 July 2026. The summoning order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Haldwani, and the revisional order dated 07.08.2021 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital, were upheld. Proceedings in Criminal Case No. 2019 of 2015 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, under Sections 494 and 504 IPC read with Section 357 Cr.P.C. will continue. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of accordingly.