The Allahabad High Court has held that relatives of a husband cannot be prosecuted for the offence of bigamy merely because they knew about his alleged second marriage. There must be material showing that they actively participated in, facilitated or encouraged the solemnisation of the second marriage.
Justice Sandeep Jain partly allowed an application under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the summoning of the husband’s mother and sister-in-law under Section 494 IPC. The Court, however, upheld the husband’s summoning for bigamy and allowed the prosecution of the accused persons to continue for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The judgment was delivered on August 11, 2026.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from a complaint by Shakuntala Devi, who stated that she married Ram Pratap Singh on December 7, 1991 according to Hindu rites and rituals.
She alleged that despite dowry being given at the time of marriage, her husband and his family members remained dissatisfied and subjected her to assault, abuse and threats while demanding an additional Rs 5,000 and a scooter. According to the complaint, she eventually had to leave her matrimonial home.
Shakuntala further alleged that she returned to her matrimonial home with her elder sister on March 28, 1997 in an attempt to resume cohabitation. She alleged that both were assaulted and abused and that during the incident, Ram Pratap Singh disclosed that he had contracted a second marriage.
An FIR was subsequently registered under Sections 494, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The investigating officer later submitted a final report. Shakuntala challenged it through a protest petition, alleging that Ram Pratap Singh had married Pinki, a resident of Village Uncha in Auraiya district.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate registered the protest petition as a complaint case. After recording Shakuntala’s statement under Section 200 CrPC and the statements of witnesses Saroj and Munni Devi under Section 202 CrPC, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate summoned the accused on March 3, 2003 for the offences alleged in the complaint.
Arguments of the Parties
The applicants argued that there was no credible evidence supporting the allegations of dowry demand, cruelty or assault.
On the bigamy charge, they contended that there was no legally admissible evidence establishing that Ram Pratap Singh had solemnised a second marriage with Pinki. They argued that Section 494 IPC required prima facie material showing performance of the essential ceremonies necessary for a valid marriage under the applicable personal law and that mere allegations or hearsay concerning a second marriage were insufficient.
The State opposed the application, arguing that a court at the summoning stage only has to determine whether a prima facie case exists and is not required to undertake a meticulous assessment of the evidence or determine the likelihood of conviction.
It submitted that the complainant and witnesses had consistently spoken about cruelty, assault and dowry harassment and had also alleged that Ram Pratap Singh contracted another marriage while his first marriage continued.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in S. Nitheen and Others v. State of Kerala and Others and Sivaraman Nair and Others v. State of Kerala and Another.
Referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the High Court observed that merely naming family members in a matrimonial criminal case without specific allegations showing active involvement cannot provide the basis for their prosecution.
The Court noted that general and sweeping accusations unsupported by concrete material or particularised allegations require caution, particularly where all members of a husband’s family are implicated in a matrimonial dispute.
On Section 494 IPC specifically, the Court said:
“Mere knowledge of the 2nd marriage, in itself, is not sufficient to inculpate the other family members for the offence of bigamy committed by the husband.”
It added that there must be material suggesting that the accused relatives “actively participated in, facilitated, or encouraged the solemnisation of that marriage.”
Key Observations
Examining the evidence in the present case, the Court found that neither Shakuntala nor her sister Saroj attributed any role to Ram Pratap Singh’s relatives in solemnising his alleged second marriage with Pinki.
The complainant’s mother, Munni Devi, had alleged that the father-in-law, mother-in-law and sister-in-law assisted and conspired in the second marriage. The High Court, however, found this to be a generalised assertion without any specific allegation explaining how they actively assisted, facilitated or encouraged the marriage or participated in a conspiracy to solemnise it.
The Court observed:
“It is further apparent that no overt act or omission on the part of the relatives of the husband, in solemnising the 2nd marriage, have been alleged by the above witnesses, in their statement before the trial court.”
It therefore concluded that the Trial Court had erred in summoning the husband’s relatives for the offence under Section 494 IPC.
At the same time, the High Court found sufficient prima facie evidence to sustain the summoning for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The statements before the Trial Court contained allegations of an additional demand of Rs 5,000 and a scooter, along with continuous mental and physical harassment.
Decision
The High Court partly allowed the application and quashed the March 3, 2003 summoning order insofar as Phoolan Devi alias Bhurani, the mother-in-law, and Vimla, the sister-in-law, had been summoned under Section 494 IPC.
It upheld the summoning of Ram Pratap Singh under Section 494 IPC. The summoning of the accused for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was also upheld.
The Court vacated the interim order dated July 2, 2008 and directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings and preferably conclude the trial within one year from production of a certified copy of the judgment, without granting unnecessary adjournments.
Case Title: Ram Pratap Singh and Others v. State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: Application U/S 482 No. 14813 of 2008
Bench: Justice Sandeep Jain
Date: August 11, 2026
