A Single Judge Bench of Justice Soni Shrivastava quashed criminal proceedings against the parents and first wife of a man accused of concealing his existing marriage before marrying another woman, holding that the allegations against them did not disclose the ingredients of the offences.

The Court was hearing a petition challenging an order dated May 1, 2023, passed by a Judicial Magistrate in Saharsa, taking cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 323, 420, 495 and 496 IPC. They also challenged a subsequent order dated September 10, 2026, rejecting their discharge application under Section 245 CrPC.

The case arose from a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that she had come into contact with Amit Kumar Rai through the matrimonial website Jeevansathi.com, where he represented himself as unmarried and employed as a Sub-Inspector in the Bihar Police. Relying upon these representations, the complainant married him on June 22, 2022, at Vidyapati Dham Temple in Samastipur. She alleged that Amit Kumar Rai received approximately Rs.36.56 lakh, apart from jewellery and other articles, and subsequently demanded further money for purchasing a flat.

According to the complainant, she was kept at a hotel in Patna after the marriage instead of being taken to her matrimonial home. She subsequently discovered that Amit Kumar Rai was already married, had two children from his first marriage and was not employed as a Sub-Inspector in the Bihar Police. The complainant alleged that his parents and first wife had acted in connivance with him to conceal his existing marriage and facilitate the subsequent marriage.

The petitioners argued that the principal allegations of misrepresentation, concealment of marriage and receipt of money were directed against Amit Kumar Rai. They submitted that no specific overt act involving cheating or receipt of money had been attributed to them and that the allegations against them were general in nature.

The High Court noted that the allegations of misrepresentation and financial transactions were principally directed against Amit Kumar Rai, in whose account the payments were allegedly made. It further observed that, according to the complainant's own statement, the petitioners had visited the hotel and informed her that Amit Kumar Rai was already married and had two children. The Court found that the subsequent assurance allegedly given by the family members to return the money and articles did not establish that they had prior knowledge of the second marriage or were actively involved in arranging it.

Examining the applicability of Sections 494, 495 and 496 IPC, the Court noted that Section 494 concerns bigamy, while Section 495 deals with concealment of a previous marriage by a person committing the offence defined under Section 494. Section 496 concerns a person who dishonestly or fraudulently goes through a marriage ceremony knowing that the marriage is not lawful. The Bench reasoned that these provisions concern the person contracting the subsequent marriage and do not expressly contemplate direct criminal liability of family members merely because of their relationship with that person. It observed:

“The very opening line of Section 495 of IPC indicates that only such person can be made an accused under this Section, who has committed an offence defined in the last preceding Section i.e. 494 of IPC. Section 496 also makes it evident that a person who goes through the ceremony of being married with fraudulent and dishonest intention being aware that he is not getting lawfully married, is sought to be made an accused. None of these provisions expressly contemplate the implication of members of the family of the person who actually gets married unlawfully and with fraudulent intention including concealment of earlier marriage. It is only the spouse against whom the aforesaid offences would be attracted.”

The Court further explained that Section 495 is based on the offence of bigamy under Section 494 and held that the same principle concerning the person contracting the subsequent marriage applied to Section 496. It emphasised that even the mere presence or attendance of relatives at a subsequent marriage would not, by itself, make them liable for the offences. The Bench held:

“It thus emerges from the foregoing discussion that family members of an accused husband cannot be directly charged with the offence under Section 495 IPC being similar and based upon 494 IPC and can only be pursued against the individual entering into the second marriage while keeping the first marriage a secret to a new partner...”

However, the Court clarified that family members could face criminal proceedings where allegations disclose the necessary ingredients of abetment or criminal conspiracy.

In the present case, it noted that neither Section 34 IPC concerning common intention, Section 109 concerning abetment, nor Section 120B concerning criminal conspiracy had been invoked in the complaint or made the subject of cognizance. The Court also found that the complaint and the complainant's statement did not disclose the necessary ingredients to implicate the petitioners on these grounds.

The Court additionally held that the ingredients of Sections 323 and 420 IPC were not made out against the petitioners, since the allegations of cheating through misrepresentation and the subsequent physical scuffle were specifically attributed to Amit Kumar Rai. It also considered that the complaint had been instituted after a delay of approximately 42 days and found that the allegations against the family members did not justify continuation of the prosecution.

The Court held that the case fell within the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal governing the quashing of criminal proceedings. Concluding that continuation of the prosecution against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court, the High Court quashed the order dated May 1, 2023, taking cognizance insofar as it concerned the petitioners.

Consequently, it also set aside the subsequent order dated September 10, 2026, rejecting their discharge application.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Ravindra Kumar Singh, Adv.; Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Paswan, Adv.; Mr. Suraj Kumar, Adv.; Ms. Rinki Kumari, Adv.; Mr. Chandra Kishor, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP

For the O.P. No. 2: Mr. Dharmendra Kr. Paswan, Adv.; Ms. Ms. Deepshikha, Adv.