The offence of bigamy under Section 494 of the IPC is inherently personal and attributable only to the spouse, and indiscriminate, vague allegations of dowry harassment against distant family members without specific overt acts constitute an abuse of process, justifying the quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J.

These two Criminal Petitions are heard and disposed of by way of this common order, as the facts and circumstances of these two cases are one and the same, but the accused are different.

2. Criminal Petition No.11420 of 2025 and Criminal Petition No.961 of 2025 have been filed under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Act, 2023 (for brevity the ‘BNSS’) by the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1, 3 to 13, seeking to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.690 of 2022 on the file of the learned Special Judicial First Class Magistrate Excise Court, Ongole, registered for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘the I.P.C), Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the D.P. Act’) and Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for brevity ‘the Cr.P.C’)

3. Sri P. Mallikharjuna Rao, the learned counsel for Petitioners submits that the allegations made in the complaint and charge sheet do not satisfy the essential ingredients required to constitute the offences under Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P.Act’. It is argued that the offence of bigamy under Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ is personal in nature and can be attributed only to the spouse who contracts a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. Therefore, implicating other family members and relatives, who are neither parties to the alleged second marriage nor directly involved, is legally unsustainable. The Petitioners further submit that the prosecution has mechanically arrayed all family members without any specific overt acts, which amounts to a misuse of criminal law.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the allegations relating to dowry demand and harassment are vague, omnibus, and lack specific instances against each accused. Many of the accused were residing in different places and had no direct involvement in the marital affairs of Accused No.1 and the de-facto complainant. It is contended that the complaint has been filed with an oblique motive to harass the entire family and to exert pressure for settling personal disputes. Hence, it is submitted that continuation of the proceedings in C.C.No. 690 of 2022 against the Petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of law, warranting quashment in the interest of justice.

5. On the other hand, Ms. P. Akhila Naidu, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet, when taken at their face value, clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences under Section 494 of ‘the I.P.C.,’ and Sections 3 and 4 of ‘the D.P Act’. It is submitted that at the stage of quashment, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of evidence or adjudicate the truthfulness of the allegations. The material collected during investigation prima facie indicates that the Accused No.1 contracted a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, and the other accused actively participated in facilitating, supporting, and concealing the said illegal act. Therefore, their implication cannot be said to be without basis.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the allegations regarding dowry demand and harassment are not vague but form part of a continuous course of conduct involving all the accused, including family members and relatives, who acted in concert. It is argued that merely because some accused were residing at different places does not absolve them of liability, as their role in instigating, aiding, or abet