Court quashes Criminal Case due to abuse of legal process, lack of evidence.

The Court allowed the petition, quashing Criminal Case No. 1903 of 1996 and all orders passed therein. The decision was based on the abuse of legal process by the complainant, lack of evidence for the bigamy allegation, and the petitioner's previous acquittals. The Court emphasized the need to prevent the abuse of the legal process and secure the ends of justice.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of Criminal Case No. 1903 of 1996.
2. Allegations of bigamy against the petitioner.
3. Abuse of process of law by the complainant.
4. Maintainability of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. Previous acquittals of the petitioner in related criminal cases.
6. Impact of the pending criminal case on the petitioner's employment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing of Criminal Case No. 1903 of 1996:
The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1903 of 1996 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously approached the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but withdrew the application. The Court allowed the petition considering the abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice, given the lack of progress in the case and the repetitive nature of the complaints filed by the respondent.

2. Allegations of Bigamy Against the Petitioner:
The complainant alleged that the petitioner remarried while their marriage was still subsisting, constituting bigamy under Section 494 of IPC. The Court found no evidence of the marriage being "solemnized" with proper ceremonies. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in *Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande* and *Kanwal Ram*, the Court held that mere admission of marriage by the accused is not sufficient to prove bigamy.

3. Abuse of Process of Law by the Complainant:
The Court observed that the complainant had a history of filing multiple complaints against the petitioner, including Criminal Case No. 850 of 1991 and Criminal Case No. 1310 of 1993, in which the petitioner was acquitted. The Court noted that the complainant's actions amounted to harassment and abuse of the legal process.

4. Maintainability of the Petition:
The respondent argued that the petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had previously withdrawn a similar application. However, the Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B. v. Mohan Singh and Ors.*, which allows for subsequent applications if circumstances have changed. The Court found that the lack of progress in the criminal case justified the maintainability of the petition.

5. Previous Acquittals of the Petitioner in Related Criminal Cases:
The petitioner had been acquitted in previous criminal cases filed by the complainant, including Criminal Case No. 850 of 1991 and Criminal Case No. 1310 of 1993. The Court took these acquittals into account, noting that the allegations in the current case were similar to those in the previous cases.

6. Impact of the Pending Criminal Case on the Petitioner's Employment:
The petitioner, a State Government employee, faced difficulties in his employment due to the pending criminal case. The complainant had also filed an application with the State Government for action against the petitioner, which was stayed by the Court. The Court considered this impact while deciding to quash the proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Court allowed the petition, quashing Criminal Case No. 1903 of 1996 and all orders passed therein. The decision was based on the abuse of legal process by the complainant, lack of evidence for the bigamy allegation, and the petitioner's previous acquittals. The Court emphasized the need to prevent the abuse of the legal process and secure the ends of justice.

---