Introduction:

The Patna High Court has held that family members of a person accused of contracting a second marriage while concealing an existing marriage cannot automatically be prosecuted under Sections 495 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Court clarified that these provisions primarily address the individual who contracts the subsequent marriage under the circumstances specified by law. Relatives may face criminal liability where the allegations and evidence establish the necessary ingredients of abetment, criminal conspiracy or another legally recognised basis for their involvement, but their relationship with the accused is not sufficient by itself.

The ruling was delivered by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Soni Shrivastava while considering a petition filed by the parents and first wife of a man accused of concealing his existing marriage before marrying another woman. The petitioners challenged an order dated May 1, 2023, passed by a Judicial Magistrate at Saharsa, taking cognizance of offences under Sections 323, 420, 495 and 496 IPC. They also challenged a subsequent order dated September 10, 2026, by which the Magistrate rejected their application for discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by a woman who alleged that she had met Amit Kumar Rai through the matrimonial website Jeevansathi.com. According to the complainant, Rai had represented himself as an unmarried man employed as a Sub-Inspector in the Bihar Police. Relying on these representations, she agreed to marry him.

The marriage took place on June 22, 2022, at Vidyapati Dham Temple in Samastipur. The complainant alleged that Rai received approximately Rs. 36.56 lakh from her, in addition to jewellery and other articles. She further claimed that, after the marriage, he demanded additional money for purchasing a flat.

The complainant alleged that instead of taking her to his matrimonial home, Rai kept her at a hotel in Patna. She subsequently discovered that he was already married, had two children from his first marriage and was not employed as a Sub-Inspector in the Bihar Police. These alleged discoveries formed the basis of her accusations of deception, concealment of a previous marriage and financial wrongdoing.

The complaint extended beyond Rai himself. The woman alleged that his parents and first wife had acted in connivance with him to conceal his existing marriage and facilitate the subsequent marriage. Criminal proceedings were consequently initiated against the family members as well as Rai.

The petitioners disputed the allegations against them and approached the High Court after the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and subsequently rejected their discharge application. They argued that the essential allegations concerning false representations, receipt of money and the alleged physical altercation were principally directed against Rai. They maintained that the complaint did not identify specific acts by which they had personally committed the offences for which cognizance had been taken.

The High Court was therefore required to examine the scope of Sections 495 and 496 IPC, the circumstances in which family members can be prosecuted for offences connected with an allegedly unlawful second marriage, and whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed the ingredients of the other offences invoked against the petitioners.

Section 494 IPC addresses the offence of bigamy, subject to the statutory requirements and applicable exceptions. Section 495 deals with bigamy accompanied by concealment of the previous marriage from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted. Section 496 concerns dishonestly or fraudulently going through a marriage ceremony while knowing that the marriage is not lawful. These provisions address specific conduct associated with the person contracting the marriage, rather than creating automatic criminal liability for relatives.

At the same time, the law recognises that a person who does not personally perform the principal act may, in appropriate circumstances, be criminally liable for abetting or conspiring in an offence. Such liability, however, requires the relevant legal ingredients to be established. The question is not simply whether relatives were associated with the accused or knew about the circumstances of the marriage, but whether the allegations disclose a legally sufficient basis for prosecuting them.

After examining the complaint, the complainant’s statement and the circumstances relied upon by the parties, the Patna High Court concluded that the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences had not been established against the petitioners. It also considered the principles governing the quashing of criminal proceedings laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.

The High Court ultimately quashed the cognizance order insofar as it concerned the petitioners and set aside the subsequent order rejecting their discharge application. The ruling highlights the distinction between the alleged criminal conduct of a person contracting a second marriage and the separate question of whether family members can be prosecuted for participating in, facilitating or conspiring in that conduct.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioners, comprising the parents and first wife of Amit Kumar Rai, challenged the criminal proceedings on the ground that the complaint did not disclose the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against them. Their principal contention was that the accusations of misrepresentation, concealment of the previous marriage and receipt of money were directed primarily at Rai, who was alleged to have made the representations and received the payments.

The petitioners argued that the complainant had not attributed any specific act of cheating or financial wrongdoing to them. According to their case, the complaint relied on broad allegations that the family members had acted in connivance with Rai, without identifying the conduct through which each petitioner had participated in the alleged offences.

They maintained that criminal proceedings could not be sustained merely because they were related to the man accused of bigamy or because the complainant believed they had knowledge of his existing marriage. A prosecution must be supported by allegations that, if accepted at face value, disclose the legal ingredients of the offences invoked against each accused.

The petitioners particularly challenged the application of Sections 495 and 496 IPC. They argued that these provisions concern the person who contracts the subsequent marriage under the circumstances specified by the statute. Section 495 is linked to the offence of bigamy under Section 494, while Section 496 concerns the person who dishonestly or fraudulently goes through a marriage ceremony knowing that the marriage is not lawful.

According to the petitioners, neither provision expressly makes the parents or first wife of the person contracting the subsequent marriage directly liable merely because of their relationship with him. They submitted that the prosecution could not extend these offences to the family members without establishing a separate legal basis for their involvement.

The petitioners also contended that if the complainant intended to allege that they had assisted or encouraged Rai in committing an offence, the complaint had to disclose the necessary elements of abetment or criminal conspiracy. The petitioners pointed out that Section 109 IPC, concerning punishment for abetment in applicable circumstances, and Section 120B IPC, concerning criminal conspiracy, had not been invoked as the basis for cognizance against them. Nor had Section 34 IPC, relating to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, been invoked.

Their argument was not merely that these provisions had not been mentioned by number. Rather, they maintained that the complaint and the complainant’s statement did not contain facts establishing the substantive requirements necessary to prosecute them on a theory of common intention, abetment or conspiracy.

The petitioners further relied on the complainant’s own account of subsequent events. According to the complaint, the petitioners had visited the hotel where she was staying and informed her that Rai was already married and had two children. The petitioners argued that this circumstance did not establish that they had knowingly participated in concealing the first marriage before the second marriage took place.

The complainant also alleged that assurances had subsequently been given concerning the return of money and articles. The petitioners contended that such an alleged assurance, even if accepted for the purpose of examining the complaint, did not independently establish that they had previously conspired with Rai or actively facilitated the marriage through concealment of his marital status.

They also challenged the continuation of proceedings for offences under Sections 323 and 420 IPC. The allegations concerning cheating through misrepresentation and the alleged physical scuffle were, according to the petitioners, specifically attributed to Rai. They argued that the complaint did not set out facts demonstrating that they had personally committed these acts or participated in them in a manner recognised by criminal law.

The petitioners accordingly submitted that the Magistrate’s decision to take cognizance against them was unsustainable and that the rejection of their discharge application perpetuated proceedings unsupported by the necessary legal ingredients. They sought the High Court’s intervention to prevent the criminal process from continuing against them without a sufficient factual and legal foundation.

The complainant, who was arrayed as opposite party No. 2, had alleged that Rai misrepresented himself as unmarried and employed in the Bihar Police, induced her to marry him, received substantial sums of money and concealed his existing marriage and children. Her complaint further alleged that Rai’s parents and first wife acted in connivance with him in facilitating the subsequent marriage.

The allegations against the family members were therefore presented as part of a broader claim that the complainant had been deceived in connection with the marriage. The complaint sought to hold the petitioners accountable on the basis of their alleged participation in the concealment of Rai’s existing marriage and the circumstances surrounding the subsequent marriage.

The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, appeared for the prosecution. The proceedings had reached the High Court after the Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences and rejected the petitioners’ discharge application. The High Court was thus called upon to determine whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners could legally continue on the allegations recorded in the complaint and the complainant’s statement.

The essential dispute was whether the allegations disclosed the ingredients of the offences against the petitioners or whether they sought to impose liability on family members without establishing their specific criminal participation. The High Court had to distinguish between allegations that might support prosecution of the person accused of contracting the second marriage and those necessary to sustain prosecution of his relatives.

Court’s Judgment:

The Patna High Court allowed the petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, finding that the allegations did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences for which cognizance had been taken. Justice Soni Shrivastava examined the statutory language of Sections 494, 495 and 496 IPC and concluded that these provisions could not be directly invoked against family members merely because of their relationship with the person accused of contracting the subsequent marriage.

The Court began by examining the relationship between Sections 494 and 495 IPC. Section 494 addresses the offence of bigamy in circumstances where a person contracts another marriage during the lifetime of a spouse, subject to the statutory conditions and exceptions. Section 495 is based on that offence and deals with the additional circumstance of concealing the previous marriage from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted.

The Court observed that the language at the beginning of Section 495 expressly links the provision to the person who commits the offence defined in Section 494. The statutory structure therefore focuses on the individual who contracts the subsequent marriage while concealing the existing marriage, rather than automatically extending direct liability to the individual’s parents, relatives or first spouse.

Justice Shrivastava explained that Section 496 similarly addresses the person who dishonestly or fraudulently goes through a marriage ceremony while knowing that the marriage is not lawful. The provision is concerned with the conduct and state of mind of the person who goes through the ceremony under those circumstances.

The Court held that neither Section 495 nor Section 496 expressly contemplates direct criminal liability for family members merely because the person contracting the marriage is alleged to have acted unlawfully or fraudulently. The provisions cannot be extended to relatives solely on the basis of their familial relationship with the principal accused.

This interpretation reflects the principle that criminal liability must be grounded in the statutory ingredients of the offence. A person cannot be prosecuted for a particular offence merely because the person is associated with someone accused of committing it. The complaint must disclose the conduct that brings the accused within the scope of the relevant provision or establish another recognised legal basis for liability.

The Court’s reasoning did not, however, establish that family members are immune from prosecution in every case involving bigamy or concealment of a previous marriage. It expressly recognised that relatives may be prosecuted where the allegations disclose the necessary ingredients of abetment or criminal conspiracy. The crucial distinction is between directly charging a relative with an offence whose statutory elements concern the person contracting the marriage and prosecuting that relative for a separately established role in facilitating or conspiring to commit the offence.

Abetment and criminal conspiracy are distinct bases of criminal liability. Abetment requires the relevant elements of instigation, conspiracy accompanied by an act or illegal omission where the law so provides, or intentional aid, as applicable to the circumstances. Criminal conspiracy requires an agreement between persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means, subject to the applicable statutory requirements. Mere association, relationship or presence does not automatically establish either offence.

The Court also emphasised that the mere attendance or presence of relatives at a subsequent marriage would not, by itself, make them criminally liable under Sections 495 or 496 IPC. The prosecution must establish more than the fact that family members were connected with the person contracting the marriage. Their conduct must be assessed against the specific requirements of the offence or the relevant provisions governing participation in another person’s crime.

In the present case, the Court found that the complaint and the complainant’s statement did not disclose the necessary ingredients of abetment or criminal conspiracy against the petitioners. It noted that Sections 34, 109 and 120B IPC had not been invoked as the basis for the proceedings against them. More importantly, the factual allegations themselves did not provide a sufficient foundation for implicating the petitioners on those grounds.

The Court examined the complainant’s account concerning the alleged concealment of Rai’s existing marriage. The primary allegations of misrepresentation and the receipt of money were directed against Rai, whose account was alleged to have received the payments. The complaint did not sufficiently identify separate acts by the petitioners demonstrating that they had participated in the alleged financial deception.

The Court also considered the complainant’s own statement that the petitioners had visited the hotel where she was staying and informed her that Rai was already married and had two children. This part of the complaint was relevant to the question of whether the family members had knowingly participated in concealing the previous marriage before the subsequent marriage occurred.

The Court found that the subsequent disclosure of Rai’s existing marriage, as described by the complainant, did not establish that the petitioners had prior knowledge of the second marriage or had actively arranged it while concealing the first marriage. The Court further observed that the alleged assurance to return the money and articles did not, without more, establish prior involvement in the alleged deception.

The distinction between subsequent conduct and prior participation was important. An alleged promise to return property after a dispute arises does not automatically demonstrate that the person making the promise had participated in the original transaction with a fraudulent intention. The criminal ingredients must be assessed from the allegations and evidence relating to the relevant conduct, rather than inferred solely from later interactions between the parties.

The High Court also considered the allegations under Sections 323 and 420 IPC. Section 323 concerns voluntarily causing hurt, while Section 420 addresses cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security, subject to its statutory requirements.

The Court found that the allegations concerning cheating through misrepresentation and the subsequent physical scuffle were specifically attributed to Rai. The complaint did not disclose sufficient facts to establish that the petitioners had themselves committed these offences or had participated in the alleged acts in a legally sufficient manner.

In relation to Section 420 IPC, the Court’s assessment was particularly relevant to the allegation that substantial sums had been paid in reliance on Rai’s representations about his marital status and employment. The fact that the payments were allegedly received in Rai’s account supported the distinction between the alleged conduct of the principal accused and the allegations against his relatives. The Court found no adequate basis in the complaint to sustain the cheating charge against the petitioners.

Similarly, the allegations concerning the physical altercation did not establish the necessary ingredients of Section 323 IPC against them. The Court therefore concluded that the continuation of proceedings for these offences was not justified on the material placed before it.

The Court also took into account the delay of approximately 42 days between the relevant events and the institution of the complaint. This circumstance formed part of its overall consideration of the allegations. However, delay alone does not automatically invalidate a criminal complaint. Its significance depends on the facts of the case, the nature of the alleged offence and the other material available. The Court’s decision rested on its assessment that the allegations against the petitioners did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences charged.

A central part of the judgment was the application of the principles laid down by the Supreme Curt in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. That decisi