Court Rules Sections 495 and 496 IPC Applicable Only Against Husband; Family Members' Criminal Liability Not Established
In a significant judgment delivered on October 9, 2026, the Patna High Court, presided over by Justice Soni Shrivastava, quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the family members of Amit Kumar Rai, accused in a matrimonial fraud and bigamy complaint. The case pertained to allegations that Amit Kumar Rai concealed his prior marriage and misrepresented his employment status to the complainant, resulting in the second marriage. While cognizance was initially taken against Amit Kumar Rai's parents and first wife, the High Court held that Sections 495 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are applicable exclusively to the spouse contracting the unlawful second marriage.
The complainant alleged that Amit Kumar Rai, representing himself as an unmarried Sub-Inspector in Bihar Police, entered into marriage with her on June 22, 2022, after which it was revealed that he was already married with two children. She claimed financial transactions amounting to approximately Rs. 36,56,251, along with jewelry and gifts, were made in connection with the marriage. The complaint extended to Amit Kumar Rai's father, mother, and first wife, accusing them of concealing his prior marriage and facilitating the fraudulent union.
The petitioners contended that the allegations against them were vague and general, with no specific overt acts or direct involvement in the alleged offenses. Notably, the petitioners' counsel submitted that Amit Kumar Rai's father was on official duty in Jharkhand on the date of the marriage, supported by attendance records, negating his presence at the event. Further, no bank transactions or demands were specifically attributed to the petitioners.
The Court observed that the offences under Sections 495 and 496 IPC, which deal with concealment of former marriage and fraudulent marriage ceremonies, are founded on Section 494 IPC that criminalizes bigamy. These provisions, by their language, apply solely to the individual who contracts the unlawful second marriage. Family members who did not themselves contract the second marriage cannot be held liable under these sections unless there are allegations of abetment, conspiracy, or common intention, none of which were present in this case.
Referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling in S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala (2024) 8 SCC 706, the Court highlighted the principle that mere knowledge or presence at a second marriage does not establish criminal liability for relatives or friends. The Court further noted procedural irregularities, including the learned Magistrate taking cognizance under Sections 495 and 496 IPC without first taking cognizance under Section 494 IPC, which is legally unsustainable.
The Court also scrutinized allegations under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 420 (cheating) IPC against the petitioners, finding that all direct accusations of misrepresentation, receipt of money, and ill-treatment were specifically against Amit Kumar Rai. The petitioners had no specific overt acts linked to these charges.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the cognizance order dated May 1, 2023, against the petitioners and set aside the subsequent order rejecting their discharge application dated September 10, 2026. The Court ruled that continuing proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and held that the criminal prosecution against the husband's family members was both factually and legally untenable.
This judgment clarifies the scope of bigamy-related offences and reinforces that criminal charges under Sections 494, 495, and 496 IPC should be directed at the spouse who unlawfully contracts a second marriage, not their family members, absent specific allegations of conspiracy or abetment.
Bottom Line:
Quashing - Matrimonial fraud/bigamy complaint - In absence of specific allegations, and where Sections 495 and 496 IPC are attracted only against the spouse contracting the unlawful second marriage, criminal proceedings against husband's family members are liable to be quashed - Mere relationship, vague allegations, or subsequent assurance to return money is insufficient - If initial cognizance order is bad in law, subsequent order rejecting discharge also falls.
Statutory provision(s):
Indian Penal Code Sections 323, 420, 494, 495, 496; Criminal Procedure Code Sections 245, 482
Indrajeet Rai v. State of Bihar, (Patna) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2993873
