Calcutta High Court: In a petition filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to quash a case under Sections 498-A, 420 and 384, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), along with charge-sheet dated 28 August 2022currently pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Uday Kumar, J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.
The case originated from a complaint filed by the complainant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Bardhaman, which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) CrPC, resulting in FIR alleging that after meeting the petitioner in 2019, he falsely represented himself as an unmarried orphan, entered into a relationship with her, persuaded her to convert to Islam, and solemnised a registered Muslim marriage with her on 2 July 2020. They allegedly lived together as husband and wife in a rented house until she discovered that the petitioner was already married and had a pregnant wife. She further alleged that, upon confronting him, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty and was assaulted and driven out of the house on 1 May 2022.
During investigation, the police inspected the place of occurrence and recorded witness statements, including that of the landlord, who confirmed that the parties had lived together as spouses and that a violent dispute had occurred on 1 May 2022. Although no formal proof of the Muslim marriage was produced, the investigating officer considered the evidence of cohabitation and witness accounts sufficient to establish a prima facie case. A charge-sheet was consequently filed under Sections 420, 498-A and 384 IPC. Meanwhile, a matrimonial suit under Section 13-B, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was pending between the complainant and her previous husband. Thus, challenging the continuation of the criminal proceedings, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the prosecution was an abuse of process because no valid marriage existed between him and the complainant.
On the question whether an offence under Section 498-A IPC is legally maintainable in a relationship in the nature of marriage where a formal traditional marriage is absent or legally flawed, the Court noted that the investigating agency collected substantive oral and documentary materials establishing a robust prima facie case of de facto cohabitation further fortified by the corroborative statements of the complainant’s parents recorded. The Court also noted that to hold that a petitioner who induces a woman into a domestic arrangement by concealing his true marital status, cohabits under the colour of a shared spouse, and subjects her to cruelty, can subsequently escape criminal liability by pointing to technical flaws in the marriage or his own bigamous conduct would be anathema to justice.
Placing reliance on Lokesh B.H. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1470, and Reema Aggrawal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199, the Court concluded that a formal, traditional marriage is not an indispensable prerequisite for the maintenance of a prosecution under Section 498-A IPC and the criminal proceeding is legally maintainable at the threshold stage.
Read more Not Married, But Still Protected: Supreme Court Extends Section 498-A IPC to Live-In Relationships
On the second question whether the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, ought to be invoked to quash the charge-sheet and criminal proceedings at the threshold stage, the Court noted that this case involves disputed questions of fact, including whether the prior marriage was subsisting, whether the petitioner concealed his marital status, whether a valid conversion and marriage ceremony took place, and the nature of the parties’ cohabitation, and such issues could not be conclusively determined in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and required a full-fledged trial.
The Court further noted that the investigation formed a prima facie case and led to the filing of the charge-sheet. Thus, the Court found no exceptional ground, manifest illegality or abuse of process warranting quashing of the proceedings, holding that the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC cannot be exercised to decide disputed questions of fact at the threshold.
On the question of whether the judicial exposition and ratio decided by the Supreme Court in Lokesh B.H. (supra) apply retrospectively to acts committed prior to the pronouncement of the said judgment, the Court held that judicial pronouncements clarifying the scope of a statutory provision do not create new law but explain its meaning as it has existed since enactment. Therefore, applying such interpretations to pending proceedings arising from prior acts does not amount to retrospective criminalisation, but merely ensures the correct application of the existing law.
[SK Azharuddin v. State of W.B., 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 12953, decided on 2-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Mr. N. S. Ghosh, Ms. Labani Sikder Mr. Souvik Dey
For the Opposite Party No. 2: Mr. Amit Dey, Mr. Ankan Santra
For the State: Mr. Gurudas Mitra, Mr. Utsav Dutta
