Bigamy FIR quashed where no prima facie evidence established a valid first marriage.

The complainant alleged that he had married Leelaben in 2017 and that, in July 2022, she left his home and married the applicant, Kajabhai Danabhai Patel; the marriage was registered on 28 July 2022.

He lodged an FIR on 20 August 2022, alleging offences under Sections 494, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The applicant’s case was that Leelaben had been engaged to the complainant under a SATA arrangement, had left of her own volition, and married the applicant; they were living together and had two children.

A Coordinate Bench had earlier quashed the same FIR against co-accused relatives.

The applicant sought quashing of the FIR and consequential proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Whether the FIR, taken at face value, disclosed the alleged offences under Sections 494, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 IPC against the applicant

Whether continuation of the proceedings against the applicant would amount to an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings where, on the Court’s assessment, the allegations taken at face value did not disclose the alleged offences and continuation of the proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process.

The alleged offences were those under Sections 494, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 IPC.

The Court also considered the Coordinate Bench’s decision quashing the same FIR against co-accused, based on its view that the marriage was the independent decision of the couple and that the relatives could not be held liable for it.

No other precedent or detailed statutory test is stated in the judgment.

The Court noted that the FIR was lodged about a month after the alleged incident, that the complainant had offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and that there appeared to be no proof of a marriage between the complainant and Leelaben.

It also considered the account that Leelaben had rejected her childhood engagement, married the applicant, and was living with him; the Coordinate Bench had already quashed the FIR against the applicant’s co-accused.

On those circumstances, the Court concluded that the FIR’s allegations, even if accepted at face value, did not disclose the alleged offences against the applicant and that further proceedings were unlikely to result in conviction and would be futile.

Rule was made absolute.