The Court held that the trial court was only required to examine whether the complaint and the material placed before it disclosed a prima facie case.The Uttarakhand High Court has held that whether the essential ceremonies of a second marriage, including Saptapadi, were performed is a matter to be decided during trial and not at the stage of summoning an accused in a prosecution for bigamy under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in K. Neelaveni v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a man accused of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of his first marriage.Justice Siddhartha Sah held that the trial court was not required to determine, at the stage of taking cognizance, whether every essential marriage ceremony had been proved, observing that such questions must be decided after evidence is led during trial.The Court observed:"Whether the essential ceremonies of marriage were performed or not is a matter of trial."BackgroundThe case arose from a criminal complaint filed by Sarojini Dhapola against her husband, alleging that he had contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of their marriage without first obtaining a decree dissolving the marital relationship.According to the complaint, the parties were married on 07.03.1988. The complainant alleged that despite the subsistence of that marriage, her husband solemnised a second marriage on 04.07.2010, thereby committing the offence of bigamy punishable under Section 494 IPC. She also alleged commission of an offence under Section 504 IPC.After recording the complainant's statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtaining a police report, the Judicial Magistrate, Haldwani, issued summons to the accused under Sections 494 and 504 IPC on 4 August 2016.The accused challenged the summoning order before the Sessions Court. However, the criminal revision was dismissed in August 2021, following which he approached the Uttarakhand High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the summoning order as well as the entire criminal proceedings.Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that the complaint itself failed to disclose the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 494 IPC. Relying on the Allahabad High Court's decision in Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, he contended that a prosecution for bigamy is maintainable only if the complaint specifically establishes that the alleged second marriage was solemnised by performing the essential ceremonies recognised under Hindu law, including the ceremony of Saptapadi. Since the complaint contained no such averments, he argued that continuation of the criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law.The complainant opposed the petition, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in Pooja Sharma Bajaj v. Kunal Bajaj and the Supreme Court's judgment in K. Neelaveni v. State of Tamil Nadu. She argued that requiring a wife to prove every essential ceremony of the alleged second marriage even before issuance of summons would impose an impossible burden, particularly when such marriages are often performed secretly. According to her, whether the essential ceremonies were actually performed is a matter that can only be determined after evidence is led during trial.Supreme Court Precedent Prevails Over Contrary High Court ViewThe principal issue before the High Court was whether a complainant must establish, at the stage of summoning itself, that every essential ceremony of the alleged second marriage, including Saptapadi, had been performed to make out an offence under Section 494 IPC.The petitioner relied upon the Allahabad High Court's decision in Nisha v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which held that in the absence of material showing performance of Saptapadi, the basic ingredients of bigamy are not made out.The High Court, however, found that the issue stood concluded by the Supreme Court's judgment in K. Neelaveni v. State of Tamil Nadu, which specifically held that whether the essential ceremonies of marriage were actually performed is a matter to be examined during trial and not while considering whether the accused should be summoned.Accordingly, the Court held that the view expressed by the Supreme Court would prevail over the contrary view taken by the Allahabad High Court.Rejecting the petitioner's challenge, the High Court observed that the question whether the alleged second marriage satisfied the legal requirements of a valid Hindu marriage necessarily involves appreciation of evidence. The Bench held that the trial court is not expected to undertake such an enquiry at the stage of taking cognizance or issuing summons.The Court observed:"Whether the essential ceremonies of marriage were performed or not is a matter of trial."The Court further held that the ceremony of Saptapadi, though one of the essential ceremonies under Hindu law, is a matter that falls for determination after parties have led evidence and cannot be conclusively decided at the threshold.The High Court also referred to the Delhi High Court's decision in Pooja Sharma Bajaj v. Kunal Bajaj, which recognised the practical difficulties faced by a wife alleging bigamy.The Delhi High Court had observed that requiring a wife to prove every ceremony of her husband's alleged second marriage even before issuance of summons would impose an unrealistic burden, particularly because such marriages are often performed secretly without the knowledge or presence of the first wife.The Uttarakhand High Court found this reasoning consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court and observed that these questions are best left for determination after evidence is recorded during trial rather than at the stage of summoning.Applying the above principles, the High Court concluded that the Magistrate had committed no error in issuing summons against the petitioner.The Court held that the trial court was only required to examine whether the complaint and the material placed before it disclosed a prima facie case. It was not expected to record findings on disputed questions relating to the validity of the alleged second marriage. The Bench therefore found no infirmity either in the summoning order passed by the Judicial Magistrate or in the revisional court's decision affirming that order.Dismissing the petition under Section 482 CrPC, the Uttarakhand High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. The Court held that whether the essential ceremonies required for a valid second marriage, including Saptapadi, were actually performed is an issue that must be decided during trial on the basis of evidence and cannot be examined at the stage of taking cognizance or issuing summons.Criminal Misc. Application No. 1176 of 2021Kharak Singh Dhapola Versus State of Uttarakhand and AnotherDate of Decision: 31.07.2026Presence: - Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Chitrarth Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Kunwar Nripendra Singh Rautela, learned counsel with Mr. B.S. Kathayat, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)