IMPORTANT POINT
Vague allegations in matrimonial disputes fail to sustain criminal prosecution; a valid marriage is essential for such claims under marital laws.

JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present application has been filed for quashing the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begusarai in Complaint Case No.1535 of 2024 whereby and whereunder the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Begusarai took cognizance and issued process for facing trial against the petitioners and others for the offences under sections 85, 115(2), 118(1), 191(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant solemnized marriage with the co-accused, Sumit Kumar, in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals at the Kali Temple, Begusarai. It is alleged that despite being fully aware that the complainant was a divorced woman belonging to a different caste and having a minor son from her previous marriage, the co-accused Sumit Kumar voluntarily entered into the said matrimonial alliance. After the marriage, the complainant was kept in a rented accommodation. Subsequently, it is alleged that the co-accused Sumit Kumar, along with the other accused persons, subjected the complainant to cruelty, including caste-based abuse and physical assault. It is further alleged that petitioner no. 2 made an attempt to press the complainant’s neck with an intention to cause her harm.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present criminal proceeding is a gross abuse of the process of law and are liable to be quashed at the threshold. The complaint is founded on vague, omnibus and generalized allegations without attributing any specific overt act of cruelty to the petitioners. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Another , reported at (2010) 7 SCC 667, wherein the Court has cautioned against the tendency to implicate all family members of the husband in matrimonial disputes on the basis of sweeping and exaggerated allegations.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further relies upon Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana and Another , reported at (2025) 3 SCC, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that criminal prosecution in matrimonial disputes cannot be sustained in the absence of specific allegations and material particulars showing active involvement of the accused persons. It has been held that continuation of such proceedings amounts to misuse of criminal law.

6. Placing further reliance upon Rajesh Sharma and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , reported at (2018) 10 SCC 472 , the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the rampant misuse of Section 498A IPC and has emphasized the need for judicial scrutiny before subjecting the relatives of the husband to criminal prosecution, particularly when allegations are bald and unsubstantiated.

7. The learned counsel further submits that the very foundation of the prosecution is unsustainable, as the complainant was already married to another person and no decree of divorce has been placed on record. Consequently, the alleged marriage with co-accused Sumit Kumar is void-ab- initio. In this context, reliance is placed upon Dolly Rani v. Manish Kumar Chanchal , reported at (2025) 2 SCC 587 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down the essential ingredients of a valid marriage and held that in the absence of a legally valid subsisting marriage, prosecution for matrimonial offences is not maintainable.

8. It is thus submitted that in the absence of a valid marriage, specific allegations of cruelty, or any material indicating harassment by the petitioners, the essential ingredients of Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are not made out. Continuation of the criminal proceedings against the pet