The Patna High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against the relatives of a husband, ruling that prosecution for matrimonial cruelty under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, cannot sustain if the marriage itself is void due to the subsistence of a previous marriage. The Court also emphasized that vague and omnibus allegations against in-laws, who reside separately, amount to an abuse of the process of law.
Case Background
The ruling came in a petition where the relatives of the husband approached the High Court seeking to quash the order dated January 3, 2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begusarai. The Magistrate had taken cognizance and issued process against them for offences under Sections 85 (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 118(1) (voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), and 191(2) (rioting) of the BNS, 2023.
The prosecution’s case was that the complainant had solemnized her marriage with the co-accused (the husband) at a Kali Temple in Begusarai. The complainant alleged that despite knowing she was a divorced woman with a minor son from a previous marriage, the husband entered into the alliance. She alleged that after the marriage, the husband and the accused persons subjected her to cruelty, including caste-based abuse and physical assault. Specifically, it was alleged that petitioner no. 2 made an attempt to press her neck with an intention to harm her.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioners argued that the criminal proceeding was a gross abuse of the process of law. It was submitted that the complaint was founded on “vague, omnibus and generalized allegations” without attributing any specific overt act of cruelty to the petitioners. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court judgment in Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand regarding the tendency to implicate all family members in matrimonial disputes.
Furthermore, the defense argued that the foundation of the prosecution was unsustainable because the complainant was already married to another person, and no decree of divorce had been placed on record. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2025), the counsel contended that in the absence of a legally valid subsisting marriage, the alleged marriage with the co-accused was void-ab-initio, rendering prosecution for matrimonial offences not maintainable.
The counsel for the State supported the impugned order, stating that the lower court had taken cognizance after considering all materials against the petitioners.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra, delivering the judgment, observed that the allegations against the petitioners were “largely vague, omnibus, and generalized in nature.” The Court noted that except for a broad narrative of harassment, the complaint did not attribute any specific role or distinct instance of cruelty to any of the petitioners.
The Court observed:
“The absence of material particulars assumes significance, particularly in matrimonial disputes where the tendency to implicate the entire family has been judicially noticed and deprecated.”
Regarding the allegation against petitioner no. 2 about pressing the complainant’s neck, the Court found it “conspicuously unsupported by any medical evidence or contemporaneous record.” The Court noted that this allegation surfaced for the first time during the enquiry and was not in the initial complaint, terming it an improvement that rendered the allegation doubtful.
A crucial aspect of the judgment was the Court’s finding on the validity of the marriage. The Court noted the admission that the complainant was previously married and had a minor child, with no divorce decree placed on record.
Justice Mishra observed:
“In the absence of dissolution of the subsisting marriage, the alleged subsequent marriage with accused Sumit Kumar is void-ab-initio in the eyes of law.”
Referring to Section 85 of the BNS, 2023, the Court held:
“Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 requires the coexistence of two essential ingredients: first, a legally valid marital relationship; and second, cruelty arising out of such relationship. This Court finds that neither of these ingredients is satisfied in the present case.”
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal (2025), which held that the existence of a legally valid and subsisting marriage is a sine qua non (essential condition) for invoking matrimonial offences.
Additionally, the Court noted the complainant’s admission that she had been residing separately from the petitioners for nearly three years. The Court stated:
“Cruelty, in the context of matrimonial offences, presupposes a degree of proximity, interaction, or cohabitation that enables harassment or ill-treatment. In the absence of any shared residence or meaningful interaction, the allegation of cruelty by the in-laws becomes inherently improbable.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the impugned order of cognizance suffered from non-application of mind and that continuing the criminal proceedings would result in a grave miscarriage of justice. Applying the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court held that the allegations, even if taken at face value, did not disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.
Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the cognizance order dated January 3, 2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begusarai, was quashed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Manju Devi & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Another
- Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous No. 36935 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Rudra Prakash Mishra
