Criminal proceedings against co-accused cannot continue without specific allegations establishing their role in the offences.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that he married accused No. 1, Jayanthi Reddy, on 14 February 2019, but later learned that she had married accused No. 2, Diwakar, in 2014 and had concealed that marriage from him.

He further alleged that accused Nos. 1–5 acted together to facilitate the later marriage and that they threatened him and his family.

A private complaint led to registration of Crime No. 595/2024 for offences under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 351(2), and 82(2), read with Section 3(5), of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

Accused Nos. 1 and 3–5, and accused No. 2 separately, petitioned under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS to quash the proceedings.

1. Whether the complaint and supporting material disclosed a prima facie basis to continue proceedings against accused Nos. 2–5 for the offences alleged

2. Whether the proceedings against accused No. 1 should be quashed in light of the alleged prior marriage, the parties’ earlier matrimonial proceedings, and the defence of mala fides

3. Whether the police could invoke the BNS where the alleged conduct began in 2019 but was alleged to have continued until the complaint in 2024

4. Whether the complaint’s accompanying affidavit complied with the requirements discussed in Priyanka Srivastava

Section 82(2) BNS applies to a person who contracts a subsequent marriage while concealing a former marriage from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted.

The Court considered the quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and relied on Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, for the principle that, when a quashing petition alleges a frivolous or vexatious prosecution, the court may examine the FIR, surrounding circumstances, and investigation materials with care.

It also considered Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287, concerning the affidavit accompanying a complaint.

The Court further held that proceedings should not be quashed against accused No. 1 solely on an unsubstantiated defence while the matter remains at an early investigative stage.

The complaint alleged that accused No. 1 contracted a marriage with respondent No. 2 while her earlier marriage to accused No. 2 subsisted. The Court found that Section 82(2) was not attracted against accused Nos. 2–5 on the allegations pleaded: there were no specific particulars showing that accused Nos. 3–5 participated in or facilitated the marriage, and the allegation that accused No. 2 told respondent No. 2 by telephone that he had married accused No. 1 did not, by itself, establish an offence.

The Court consequently found no prima facie basis for the other alleged offences against accused Nos. 2–5 and held that continuing proceedings against them would amount to an abuse of process.

As to accused No. 1, the materials submitted by respondent No. 2 prima facie supported the allegations, and their credibility was for investigation and, if necessary, trial; the Court declined to resolve the defence based on earlier matrimonial proceedings at the threshold.

It rejected the BNS objection because the complaint alleged continuing conduct through 2024, and rejected the affidavit objection because respondent No. 2 had sworn to the truth of the complaint’s averments.

It allowed that petition as to accused Nos. 3–5 and allowed Criminal Petition No. 12528/2024 as to accused No. 2.

The proceedings against accused Nos. 2–5 in Crime No. 595/2024 were quashed.