SK. AZHARUDDIN @ AKASH vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE UDAY KUMAR

CRR 1457 OF 2024

SK. AZHARUDDIN @ AKASH
-VS-
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

For the Petitioner : Mr. N. S. Ghosh,
Ms. Labani Sikder
Mr. Souvik Dey

For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Mr. Amit Dey,
Mr. Ankan Santra

For the State : Mr. Gurudas Mitra,
Mr. Utsav Dutta

Reserved on : 25.08.2026
Pronounced on : 02.09.2026

UDAY KUMAR, J.: –
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The present criminal revision petition, preferred under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, brings to the fore a classic
contest between technical statutory defences and the lived realities of

2
CRR 1457 OF 2024

domestic cohabitation. The petitioner, Sk. Azharuddin @ Akash, has
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court seeking the complete
quashing of G.R. Case No. 2793 of 2022 arising out of Burdwan Police
Station Case No. 587 of 2022 dated 03.06.2022, under Sections 498A,
420, and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with Charge Sheet
No. 984 of 2022 dated 28.08.2022, currently pending before the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court, Purba Bardhaman.

II. FOUNDATIONAL FACTS
2. The foundational genesis of this litigation unfurls from a written
complaint lodged by the opposite party no. 2, Koyel Begum alias Jaya
Roy, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Bardhaman,
which was subsequently forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) of
the CrPC, setting the criminal machinery in motion, leading to the
registration of the FIR No. 587 of 2022 by the Burdwan Police Station.
The complainant asserted that following her separation from a prior
marriage and a chance encounter with the petitioner in 2019, the
petitioner deceitfully represented himself as an unmarried orphan. She
alleged that she was drawn into a romantic liaison, persuaded to
convert to Islam, and eventually subjected to a registered Muslim
marriage ceremony on 02.07.2020.
3. According to her narrative, both of them had cohabited as husband and
wife in a rented house situated at Dhasor village, under the domain of
the landlord Md. Mirza. Shortly thereafter, she discovered to her utter
dismay that the petitioner was already a married man with a pregnant

3
CRR 1457 OF 2024

wife and her surviving parents. When she confronted him regarding this
grave deception, she was allegedly subjected to relentless physical and
mental cruelty, culminating on 01.05.2022, when she was brutally
assaulted and driven out of the shared residence. Subsequent local
police inaction compelled her to approach the jurisdictional magistrate
under Section 156(3) CrPC.

4. Upon registration of the aforesaid FIR, the investigating agency
embarked upon a comprehensive investigation. The investigating officer
visited the place of occurrence, prepared a rough sketch map, and
recorded the statements of independent witnesses under Section 161 of
the CrPC. Crucially, the landlord, Md. Mirza, corroborated that the
couple resided in his premises on rent as spouses and noted that a
violent dispute erupted on 01.05.2022, revealing their underlying
marital complications. Similar supporting statements were recorded
from the parents of the opposite party no. 2. Although the complainant
could not produce formal documentary proof of the Muslim marriage,
the investigating officer concluded that the de facto cohabitation as
husband and wife and the eyewitness testimonies disclosed a robust
prima facie case.
5. Consequently, upon the petitioner’s surrender before the jurisdictional
court and subsequent release on bail, Charge Sheet No. 984 of 2022
under Sections 420, 498A, and 384 of the IPC was submitted against
the sole accused. Simultaneously, records reveal a parallel civil
proceeding in the form of Matrimonial Suit No. 1034 of 2023 under
Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, instituted jointly by the

4
CRR 1457 OF 2024

opposite party no. 2 and her previous legal husband, Sankar Mondal,
seeking a mutual consent divorce, which remained pending before the
district judiciary with a reconciliation date fixed for July 2024.
6. Aggrieved by the continuation of these criminal proceedings and the
filing of the chargesheet, the petitioner has approached this Court
under Section 482 of the CrPC, contending that the entire prosecution
is an abuse of process and legally unsustainable in the absence of a
valid, subsisting marriage with the complainant.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER
7. Mr. N.S. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted
that the entire criminal proceeding is a gross abuse of the judicial
process and warrants outright quashing by this Court. He argued that
the petitioner vehemently denies the existence of any valid legal
marriage with the opposite party no. 2, emphasizing that parties
governed by divergent religious personal laws cannot contract a valid
marriage without adhering to mandatory statutory frameworks, and no
such valid union ever came into existence. He submitted that an offence
under Section 498A of the IPC cannot be sustained when two adults
merely cohabit voluntarily outside a lawful wedlock.
8. Expanding on his legal challenge, Mr. Ghosh pointed out that the
earlier marriage of the opposite party no. 2 with Sankar Mondal was
legally subsisting and undissolved at the relevant time, as evidenced by
the subsequent Section 13B mutual consent divorce proceeding filed
after the FIR, which meant she lacked the legal capacity to enter into a

5
CRR 1457 OF 2024

second marriage, thereby rendering any second nuptial claim void ab
initio and constituting the offence of bigamy.
9. He further argued that an inter-religious marriage without formal
conversion procedures recognized under law is illegal, and since no
documentary proof of marriage registration under Muslim law was
recovered by the investigating officer, the absence of a valid marriage
destroys the foundational premise of Section 498A. Consequentially, he
argued, the ancillary charges of cheating under Section 420 and
extortion under Section 384 of the IPC, which allegedly sprang from the
marital transaction, must also collapse.
10. In reinforcing his submissions on statutory strictness and the
limitations of judicial expansion, Mr. Ghosh placed heavy reliance on
the principles articulated by the Apex Court in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v.
State of Karnataka & Anr. (2026 SCC OnLine SC 1470), emphasizing
the rule of restraint in statutory construction:
"The rule which has attached itself to the phrase is a rule of
restraint, and it is that a court does not supply what the
legislature did not enact. Most apparent omissions close once the
definition clause and the neighbouring sub-sections are read
alongside the provision, which is why so few arguments of this
kind survive the second principle... A deliberate legislative choice
is not an omission, however unwelcome it may be to the party
affected by it, and neither is a provision which is merely
inconvenient to work with. The reason the rule holds firm in both
situations is that the language employed in a statute is the
determinative factor of legislative intent, and while interpreting a
provision the court only interprets the law and cannot legislate it."

6
CRR 1457 OF 2024

11. Mr. Ghosh contended that stretching the definition of a husband or
marriage beyond strict legislative boundaries to cover legally flawed or
void relationships violates this core principle of judicial restraint. He
further sought to distinguish the broader ratio of Dr. Lokesh B.H. from
the unique facts of the present case, arguing that the ruling cannot be
applied retrospectively to criminalize past domestic interactions where
no valid legal framework or lawful intent ever existed.
IV. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
12. Mr. Gurudas Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the State, vehemently
opposed the prayer for quashing, submitting that the prosecution is at
the threshold stage of trial and is backed by abundant incriminating
material gathered during the police investigation. Highlighting the
statements of the landlord, Md. Mirza, at page 25 of the revisional
application, Mr. Mitra pointed out that the independent witness
affirmed that the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 resided
together in his premises on rent as spouses, and that when a violent
dispute erupted on 01.05.2022, he came to learn of their underlying
marital situation. He further noted that this de facto cohabitation as
husband and wife was corroborated by the parents of the opposite party
no. 2, whose statements were duly recorded by the police at pages 11
and 12 of the case diary. He maintained that technical arguments
regarding the strict validity of a formal marriage cannot override the
factual reality and evidence of their shared household.

7
CRR 1457 OF 2024

13. In support of his contention that a formal, flawless traditional marriage
is not an absolute prerequisite for invoking penal consequences under
domestic anti-cruelty laws, Mr. Mitra placed strong reliance on
paragraphs 9, 17, 18, and 19 of the recent Apex Court pronouncement
in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. (supra).
“ 9. Keeping the judicial development of the Section in view, as
captured above, we now deal with the appellant’s contention that
Section 498A being a penal provision has to be interpreted strictly,
confined only to a husband married to a woman in the traditional
sense. This contention is rejected. The purpose of penalising cruelty
by a husband and his relatives was to introduce a factor of
deterrence against the reprehensible behaviour that was exhibited
by such family members toward a married woman, which was not
addressed by the existing laws at the time. The objective, quite
obviously, was reformative, cloaked with punishment. Since the
provision was aimed at solving a societal issue, it is this larger
objective of securing equality for women, stepping away from the
superiority of males that is an inheritance from bygone days,
that has to inform the understanding in interpretation and
implementation of the Section. Given this purpose, implementation
necessarily has to be not literal/conservative or technical but
instead informed and aware of the objective. So, while it is true that
penal statutes have to receive strict construction, the light of that
principle cannot dim the objective of one part of the statute. It has
also to be understood that forty-three years ago, when this provision
was introduced in 1983, there were only two laws dealing
specifically with domestic cruelty. One being the general law of
the IPC and the other, the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Hence, short
of introducing entirely new legislation, this one Section, as an
option, it appears, in the hands of the legislative branch was duly
exercised.

8
CRR 1457 OF 2024

The interpretation given to this penal provision must be an
interpretation which keeps in view the reformative objective, or else
its mandate will be defeated.
Having discussed the object, purpose and interpretive tools
regarding Section 498A, we now move to the main question at hand
i.e., “live-in relationship” and the application of the Section thereto.”
*
“17. …. When the objective of the Section 498A was to provide
coverage to those cases where harassment by husband or in-laws
through wilful conduct causing mental or physical injury or driving
the woman to suicide, then to say that such harassment can only be
caused when they are married and not before that, in our
considered view, would be a case of over simplification. Whether or
not the woman in question is married or not, in the present day,
does not have a proximate link to the objective of the Section, which
is to prevent cruelty in such household setting. It may have been the
case four decades ago and as such the law was then, truly well
intentioned, but law, by its very nature, is organic and responds to
change in society in some cases and leads to change in society in
other cases. The present case is of the former kind, where it is
responding to the change. “Live-in relationships” are today, more or
less, a reality -- primarily in urban areas (be it for whatever
reason), where an increasingly large section of the population
resides, and the law must adapt itself to serve those who choose
this form.”
“ 18. Not a single person goes into a relationship knowing or
anticipating that cruelty may be meted out to them. When a couple
sets out on their journey, it is always, one presumes, with the best
of intentions and to bring joyfulness of all forms. With the passage
of time, however, some relationships may go down this troublesome

9
CRR 1457 OF 2024

path. The law must provide for the same. This distinction between
“married” and “live-in relationship in the nature of marriage”, in as
much as it relates to the protection envisaged by Section 498A, has
no rational nexus with the object of preventing domestic violence
and is as such offensive to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
HARMONISING WORDS AND INTENT
“19. Once it is established that the distinction between relationship
in the nature of marriage and marriage, in so far as protection
against cruelty is concerned, does not satisfy Article 14, the next
aspect is to harmonise the words of the section and its beneficial
intent. We have already discussed earlier the approaches of literal
interpretation and purposive interpretation. Although the conflict
between these two approaches has been recognised as perennial,
there is now a shift towards the latter. As put by Lord Millett ‘we are
all purposive constructionists now’. For beneficial legislations
intended to remedy a social evil, the Court’s duty is to discern the
intention of the legislature and advance the mischief rule to ensure
the statute is not reduced to futility.”
14. Drawing from the ratio of these paragraphs, he submitted that their
relationship constituted a "relationship in the nature of marriage,"
thereby extending the protective umbrella of Section 498A of the IPC
beyond traditional marriages to domestic arrangements where parties
cohabit as spouses.

15. Concluding his submissions, Mr. Mitra urged that questions concerning
religious conversion, alleged enticement, suppression of facts, and the
precise nature of cohabitation are quintessential disputed questions of
fact that cannot be adjudicated in a summary manner under Section
482 of the CrPC. Emphasizing that a revisional or quashing court

10
CRR 1457 OF 2024

cannot convert itself into a trial court or conduct a mini-trial to weigh
conflicting evidence, he prayed for the outright dismissal of the petition.
V. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2
16. Mr. Amit Dey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.
2, vehemently adopted the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the State and urged that the criminal proceeding must be
permitted to reach its logical conclusion through a full-fledged trial. He
submitted that the legislative philosophy underlying Section 498A of the
IPC is remedial and protective, designed specifically to shield vulnerable
individuals from matrimonial atrocities, deceit, and exploitation within
domestic setups.
17. To reinforce his arguments, Mr. Dey placed extensive reliance on the
authoritative observation of the Supreme Court in Dr. Lokesh B.H. &
Ors. (supra), which directly negates the technical defence raised by the
petitioner, noting:
"The High Court rejected the contentions of the appellant that
a valid marriage is a sine qua non for the application of
Section 498A IPC, as an unduly technical construction of the
provision that is removed from the purpose and intent thereof.
It was observed that the appellant had suppressed the factum
of his first marriage, and that after marrying respondent no.
2, presented himself as her husband."
18. Building upon this, Mr. Dey invoked the timeless ratio of the Apex
Court in Reema Aggrawal v. Anupam and Others [(2004) 3 SCC 199]:

11
CRR 1457 OF 2024

"The concept of marriage to constitute the relationship of
'husband' and 'wife' may require strict interpretation where
claims for civil rights, right to property etc. are involved inside
various other enactments and volatile situations. But that
does not stand in the way of a liberal construction being given
to the expression 'marriage' occurring in Section 498-A of the
IPC, bearing in mind the object and intent of the legislation.
Keeping in view the aim which is intended to be achieved and
the object sought to be fastened, the expression 'husband'
would cover a person who enters into marital relationship and
under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of
husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerces
her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in
the relevant provisions. The absence of a definition of
'husband' to specifically include such persons who contract
marriages ostensibly and cohabit with such woman, in the
purported exercise of their role and status as 'husband' is no
ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304-B or
498-A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and intent
of the legislature and the evils sought to be curbed. It would
be apt to construe the expression in a way which would fulfill
the statutory purpose and not one which would frustrate it."
19. Mr. Dey contended that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take
advantage of his own deceit by feigning a marital status, inducing
religious conversion, and subsequently turning around to plead the
technical invalidity of the marriage to escape criminal liability. He
submitted that there is no concept of retrospective inapplicability here,
as the legal principles clarifying the scope of Section 498A only reaffirm
the existing legislative intent to cover relationships in the nature of
marriage. Concluding his arguments, he reiterated that the contentions

12
CRR 1457 OF 2024

regarding the subsistence of a prior marriage, alleged bigamy, and
disputed facts are matters of evidence to be tested before the trial court,
and this Court ought not to interfere under its inherent jurisdiction.
VI. QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION
20. The rival contentions advanced by the respective parties crystallize the
following core questions for determination by this Court:

i. Whether an offence under Section 498A of the IPC is legally
maintainable in a relationship in the nature of marriage where a
formal traditional marriage is absent or legally flawed?
ii. Whether, in the backdrop of disputed factual assertions
regarding marital status and prior subsisting marriages, the
inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, ought to be invoked to quash the
chargesheet and criminal proceedings at the threshold stage?
iii. Whether the judicial exposition and ratio decided by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
& Anr. (supra) apply retrospectively to acts committed prior to
the pronouncement of the said judgment?
VII. DISCUSSIONS ON FACTS, LAW, AND PROPOSITIONS OF CASES
CITED
21. Proceeding to examine the first question as to the whether a criminal
prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is
legally maintainable in a relationship in the nature of marriage absent a

13
CRR 1457 OF 2024

strictly valid traditional marriage, I must address the foundational
premise urged by the petitioner that a flawless, legally unassailable
marriage is an absolute sine qua non for attracting penal liability under
anti-cruelty laws. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner
posits that because the earlier marriage of the opposite party no. 2
allegedly subsisted and no document evidencing formal, registered
Muslim marriage could be recovered, the foundational element of a
"husband-wife" relationship collapses, thereby rendering the invocation
of Section 498A void ab initio . However, this narrow, pedantic construct
of criminal jurisprudence fails to withstand the test of judicial scrutiny
when juxtaposed with the statutory intent of the enactment, the factual
materials unearthed during investigation, and the progressive
exposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
22. To properly appreciate the legal framework, one must look closely at the
statutory text of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which
penalizes cruelty by the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman. For convenience, the statutory provision is reproduced herein:
“Section 498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty. —Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
23. The legislature deliberately employed the term "husband" within the
context of domestic protection, but the scope of this expression has
been a subject of vital judicial interpretation when confronted with

14
CRR 1457 OF 2024

instances of deceit, feigned marriages, and marriage-like live-in
arrangements. The traditional view that only a woman wedded in a
formal, legally unassailable ceremony can seek refuge under this
provision has long been discarded to prevent abusers from exploiting
technical loopholes.
24. This evolution of legal principle finds its most authoritative expression
in the recent pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr.
Lokesh B.H. & Ors. (supra), where the Apex Court examined the
interplay between statutory strictness and the social objective of penal
enactments. Addressing the necessity of a purposive construction, the
Supreme Court elaborated thus:
"Though penal statutes are to be given strict construction,
however, in applying the same, it is necessary to seek the
intention of its maker. The Legislature cannot exhaustively
consider all situations and circumstances where a statute may be
applied, and therefore, a purposive construction becomes
imperative to fulfill the social objective of the enactment rather
than allowing technical loopholes to defeat it."
25. Building upon this rationale, the Apex Court in Dr. Lokesh B.H. (supra)
firmly rejected the proposition that a formal, valid marriage is an
inflexible prerequisite under Section 498A, noting:
"The High Court rejected the contentions of the appellant that
a valid marriage is a sine qua non for the application of
Section 498A IPC, as an unduly technical construction of the
provision that is removed from the purpose and intent thereof.
It was observed that the appellant had suppressed the factum

15
CRR 1457 OF 2024

of his first marriage, and that after marrying respondent no.
2, presented himself as her husband."
26. This line of reasoning is deeply anchored in the foundational
jurisprudence laid down earlier by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme
Court in Reema Aggrawal (supra), wherein the Court underscored that
technical definition of marriage cannot be permitted to frustrate the
legislative objective of curbing domestic atrocities:
"The concept of marriage to constitute the relationship of
'husband' and 'wife' may require strict interpretation where
claims for civil rights, right to property etc. are involved inside
various other enactments and volatile situations. But that
does not stand in the way of a liberal construction being given
to the expression 'marriage' occurring in Section 498-A of the
IPC, bearing in mind the object and intent of the legislation.
Keeping in view the aim which is intended to be achieved and
the object sought to be fastened, the expression 'husband'
would cover a person who enters into marital relationship and
under the colour of such proclaimed or feigned status of
husband subjects the woman concerned to cruelty or coerces
her in any manner or for any of the purposes enumerated in
the relevant provisions. The absence of a definition of
'husband' to specifically include such persons who contract
marriages ostensibly and cohabit with such woman, in the
purported exercise of their role and status as 'husband' is no
ground to exclude them from the purview of Section 304-B or
498-A IPC, viewed in the context of the very object and intent
of the legislature and the evils sought to be curbed. It would
be apt to construe the expression in a way which would fulfill
the statutory purpose and not one which would frustrate it."

16
CRR 1457 OF 2024

27. When I evaluate the factual matrix of the present case against these
settled principles and statutory provisions, the parallel is striking. A
meticulous perusal of the case diary reveals that the investigating
agency collected substantive oral and documentary materials
establishing a robust prima facie case of de facto cohabitation.
Specifically, the statement of the independent landlord, Md. Mirza,
recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC at page 25 of the revisional
application, categorically affirms that the petitioner and the opposite
party no. 2 resided together in his rental premises as spouses, shared a
common household, and were socially recognized as a married couple
until a violent altercation on 01.05.2022 exposed their underlying
domestic friction. This version is further fortified by the corroborative
statements of the complainant's parents recorded at pages 11 and 12 of
the case diary. The materials indicate that the parties cohabited
following a purported nuptial ceremony, with the petitioner projecting
himself in the status of a husband until the relationship unravelled
amidst allegations of active deception, religious conversion, and
subsequent physical and financial cruelty.

28. To hold that a petitioner who induces a woman into a domestic
arrangement by concealing his true marital status, cohabits under the
colour of a shared spouse, and subjects her to cruelty, can
subsequently escape criminal liability by pointing to technical flaws in
the marriage or his own bigamous conduct would be anathema to
justice. The constitutional imperatives of dignity and personal liberty,
as highlighted by the Apex Court, dictate that a partner in a de facto

17
CRR 1457 OF 2024

relationship cannot be left entirely unprotected against abuse while
identical conduct within a formal marriage stands penalized.
29. Accordingly, upon a harmonious reading of the statutory mandate of
Section 498A, the authoritative pronouncements in Dr. Lokesh B.H. and
Reema Aggrawal , and the concrete materials on record demonstrating a
marriage-like domestic setup, I have no hesitation in concluding that a
formal, traditional marriage is not an indispensable prerequisite for the
maintenance of a prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC. The first
question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative , holding that the
criminal proceeding is legally maintainable at the threshold stage.
30. Proceeding to evaluate the second question that whether the inherent
powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, ought to be exercised to quash the chargesheet and
criminal proceedings at the threshold stage based on disputed factual
assertions regarding marital status and prior subsisting marriages, I
must examine the statutory contours governing this extraordinary
jurisdiction and the parameters laid down by the Legislature and the
Apex Court.

31. The statutory anchor for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court
is explicitly embedded in Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court. For ready
reference, the provision is reproduced below:
“Section 482. Saving of inherent powers of High
Court. —Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or
affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such

18
CRR 1457 OF 2024

orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under
this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
32. The parameters circumscribing the exercise of this power are well-
settled through a catena of authoritative pronouncements by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. This inherent jurisdiction is designed to
prevent the abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of
justice, but it can never be utilized as a substitute for a full-fledged
trial. A quashing court does not function as a trial court, nor is it legally
empowered to conduct a meticulous appreciation of evidence, weigh
conflicting factual claims, or engage in a mini-trial at the nascent
threshold stage. Where the allegations in the FIR and the materials
collected during a comprehensive police investigation disclose the
essential prima facie ingredients of a cognizable offence, the prosecution
must be permitted to proceed to its logical conclusion.
33. In the factual matrix of the present case, the petitioner urges this Court
to truncate the criminal proceeding by asserting that his marriage with
opposite party no. 2 was legally void ab initio , as she has been already
legally married to Sankar Mondal and the said prior marriage were
subsisting till then (as evidenced by a subsequent Section 13B mutual
consent divorce proceeding filed after the FIR), and that no document
evidencing valid Muslim marriage registration was recovered by the
investigating officer. However, these contentions are deeply rooted in
disputed questions of fact that require a thorough trial for their proper
adjudication. Whether opposite party no. 2's prior marriage was

19
CRR 1457 OF 2024

subsisting at the relevant time, whether the petitioner practiced active
deception by concealing his marital status, whether a valid religious
conversion and marriage ceremony took place, and whether the nature
of their cohabitation constituted a genuine relationship in the nature of
marriage are all contentious factual issues that cannot be resolved on
the basis of unilateral affidavits or summary submissions.

34. The investigating agency, while conducting a detailed probe pursuant to
the registration of Burdwan Police Station Case No. 587 of 2022 under
Sections 498A, 420, and 384 of the IPC, visited the scene of occurrence,
prepared sketch maps, and recorded categorical statements under
Section 161 of the CrPC from independent witnesses, most notably the
landlord, Md. Mirza, who affirmed at page 25 of the revisional
application that the couple resided in his rental premises as spouses
and that a violent dispute erupted on 01.05.2022. These materials,
alongside the corroborative statements of the complainant's parents
recorded at pages 11 and 12 of the case diary, culminated in the
submission of Charge Sheet No. 984 of 2022 on 28.08.2022. Together,
they disclose a robust prima facie case against the petitioner. To cut
short the trial at this threshold would amount to a premature throttling
of a criminal prosecution that is backed by substantive investigative
material.
35. Consequently, upon carefully balancing the materials on record, the
statutory framework of Section 482 of the CrPC, and the settled
parameters of revisional interference, I arrive at the definitive
conclusion that no exceptional ground, manifest illegality, or abuse of

20
CRR 1457 OF 2024

judicial process has been made out to warrant the quashing of the
charge-sheet. The second question is accordingly answered in the
negative , holding that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
CrPC cannot be invoked to quash the proceedings based on disputed
questions of fact.
36. Finally, addressing the third question concerning the retrospective
applicability of judicial expositions such as Dr. Lokesh B.H. , it is a well-
established principle of legal interpretation that a judicial
pronouncement clarifying the true import and legislative intent of a
statutory provision does not constitute new law; rather, it expounds
what the law has always meant since its enactment. Applying these
settled principles to ongoing proceedings arising out of prior acts does
not amount to impermissible retrospective criminalization, but rather
ensures the proper application of existing statutory objectives to
ongoing litigations.
37. Upon a comprehensive review of the statutory framework, the concrete
materials on record, the rival submissions, and the settled principles of
criminal jurisprudence, the legal outcome of the present revisional
application stands crystallised through the following definitive findings:
i. The traditional, narrow construct requiring a flawless
traditional marriage as an absolute prerequisite for invoking
Section 498A of the IPC stands firmly displaced by modern
purposive interpretation. As authoritatively settled by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. (supra)

21
CRR 1457 OF 2024

and Reema Aggrawal (supra), where consenting adults
cohabit in a relationship ‘in the nature of marriage’, evidenced
by a shared household, societal recognition as spouses, and
an intrinsic intent to marry, the penal and protective mantle of
Section 498A extends fully to such domestic arrangements.
The materials on record, including the categorical statements
of the independent landlord and the complainant’s parents,
establish a robust prima facie case of de facto cohabitation,
rendering the prosecution legally maintainable at the
threshold stage.
ii. The extraordinary inherent powers of this Court under Section
482 of the CrPC cannot be invoked to conduct a mini-trial or
to prematurely choke a criminal prosecution based on
disputed questions of fact, such as the validity of conversion,
the subsistence of prior marriages, or allegations of deceit.
These contentious issues demand a full-fledged trial where
evidence can be tested through cross-examination, and the
investigating agency having submitted Charge Sheet No. 984
of 2022 after due inquiry, no exceptional ground or manifest
illegality exists to warrant interference.
VIII. ORDER
38. Accordingly, upon a careful evaluation of the entire conspectus of facts,
the applicable legal principles, and the authoritative pronouncements of

22
CRR 1457 OF 2024

the Apex Court, this Court finds no merit in the instant revision
petition.
39. The criminal revision application, being C.R.R. No. 1457 of 2024 , is
accordingly dismissed .
40. Any interim orders passed earlier stand vacated.
41. There shall be no order as to costs.

42. The learned Trial Court is directed to proceed expeditiously with the
trial in accordance with law, entirely uninfluenced by any incidental
observations made herein, ensuring that all procedural rights and
safeguards of the parties are strictly protected.
43. Case diary, be returned to the Learned Counsel for the State.
44. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted down to the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Purba Bardhaman, for immediate compliance and
necessary action.
45. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Uday Kumar, J.)