Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B.P. Sharma, J.
Mohd. Arif Ahmad Jahagir Khan – Petitioner
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Misc. Criminal Case No. 29637 of 2024
Decided on 18.3.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate Assisted by Shri Harjas Singh Chhabra, Advocate
For the Respondent-State:Shri Aatmaram Bain, Deputy Government Advocate
For the Complainant:Shri Naveen Vaswani, Advocate (Through Video Conferencing)
IMPORTANT POINT
Bigamy – Under Muslim Personal Law, a Muslim male is permitted to have more than one wife at a time, subject to conditions recognized by personal law.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A, 494, 342, 323 and 506 Part-II – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Cruelty, bigamy and criminal intimidation – Framing of charge – For offence under Section 494 IPC to be attracted, it is essential that second marriage must be void by reason of subsistence of earlier marriage – However, applicability of Section 494 IPC is subject to personal law governing parties – Under Muslim Personal Law, a Muslim male is permitted to have more than one wife at a time, subject to conditions recognized by personal law – Even if allegations of complainant are accepted at their face value, act of petitioner in contracting a second marriage would not satisfy essential ingredients of Section 494 of IPC and continuation of prosecution for said offence would amount to abuse of process of Court – However, so far as other offences alleged against petitioner are concerned, allegations and material collected during investigation prima facie disclose commission of those offences and they are required to be examined by Trial Court in accordance with law – Criminal case partly quashed. (Paras 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Inherent jurisdiction – Exercise of – Inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection, only in cases where allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose commission of any offence, or where continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. (Para 8)
Result: Criminal Petition partly allowed.
ORDER
By way of the present petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ), the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated 16.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned XVIII Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.110/2024. The petitioner has also assailed the order framing charges dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P/2) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in RCT No.4466/2022 (State vs. Mohd. Arif Khan ), whereby charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 494, 342, 323, 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that complainant- Nujahat Firdous Khanam, who is the first wife of the petitioner, lodged a report stating that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on 27.12.2002. It has been alleged that since she could not bear a child, the petitioner used to assault and defame her. It was further alleged that on 16.06.2022, at about 10–11 PM, the petitioner threatened her and stated that he would kill her by administering poison and also instigated her to commit suicide. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner had solemnized a second marriage with one Heena Kausar on 29.05.2022 and asked her to give him “Khula”, i.e. “divorce” by mutual consent. On the basis of the written report, Crime No.49/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 494, 342, 323 and 506 Part-II of IPC was registered against the petitioner at Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur and investigation was set into motion. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made out against the petitioner. He has been falsely implicated. The allegations made are omnibus in nature and are ipse dixit in nature. It is argued that the marriage of petitioner with the complainant was solemnized on 27.12.2002; however, for almost 20 years since then; there was no complaint by the complainant against the petitioner. It is only when the petitioner solemnized second marriage, the complainant came up with a cooked story that she is being harassed for the past 20 years and petitioner inflicted cruelty upon her. The FIR stated only one occurrence and that the whole allegations if read on its face value, do not disclose any of the ingredients as mentioned in Section 498-A of IPC. It is further submitted that the question of implicating the petitioner under Section 494 of IPC does not arise as the petitioner is covered by Muslim Personal Law and as per the Personal Law, a Mohammedan may have as many as four wives at the same time, but not more. Thus, the question of implicating the petitioner under Section 494 of the IPC does not arise. Reliance is place on judgment in the case of Venu Gopal Vs. Union of India (2015) SCC online Kerala 798 in which, it has been held that the application of Section 494 of IPC would be applicable when a Muslim man marries a fifth time, it is then he can be prosecuted under Section 494 of IPC. So far as Section 323 of IPC is concerned, there is no visible injury opined in the MLC report; except for the bald statement that the petitioner held her hand and hit her, there is no material on record to ascertain the commission of the said offence. So far as offence Section 342 of IPC is concerned, the same is not made out as none of the ingredients of the said offences are attracted. The complaint is totally silent on this aspect.
4. It is further contended that the petitioner pronounced ‘Divorce’ for the first time upon the complainant/respondent No.2 on 04.05.2022, and thereafter, on 29.05.2022, contracted a second marriage in accordance with Muslim rites and personal law. It is submitted that the complaint lodged by the complainant/respondent No.2 before the police aut
