FIR cannot be quashed where the accused’s knowledge and participation in an alleged second marriage require investigation.

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging that Accused No. 1 had married her on 5 September 2024 while an earlier marriage with Nandini, solemnised on 29 July 2024, subsisted, and that he and his family subjected her to harassment and dowry demands.

The petitioner, arrayed as Accused No. 6 and described as Accused No. 1’s friend, sought to quash the FIR registered for offences under Sections 85, 115(2), 127(2), 351(2), 318(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

A charge sheet had been filed against the other accused, but investigation concerning the petitioner remained incomplete because of an interim order in these proceedings.

Whether the FIR and proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed because, as a friend rather than a relative of Accused No. 1, he could not be liable under Section 85 BNS.

Whether the petitioner could be proceeded against in relation to the alleged second marriage under Section 82 BNS, despite not being a spouse to that marriage.

Whether the allegations against the petitioner disclosed the ingredients of cheating under Section 318 BNS, including deception and the requisite inducement.

Whether the disputed questions concerning the petitioner’s knowledge, participation and role required investigation rather than quashing at the FIR stage.

Section 85 BNS concerns cruelty by a husband or his relative and corresponds to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; the petitioner relied on Narendra and others v. State of Maharashtra and another for the proposition that a husband’s friend is not a “relative”.

The petitioner also relied on S. Nitheen & ors. v. State of Kerala & anr. for the proposition that a charge under Section 494 IPC simpliciter lies against the spouse who contracts the second marriage, and invoked Section 82(1) BNS by analogy.

As to cheating, the court considered the principles stated in Marian Fasihuddin & anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & anr.: cheating requires deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, and the requisite dishonest intention; the petitioner also relied on Smt. Rashi Sharma v. State of Chhattisgarh and anr. concerning the need for material showing that property was parted with because of deception.

The court’s determination at this stage was whether the allegations and available material warranted investigation, not whether guilt or the specific offence was ultimately established.

The court noted that statements of Accused No. 1’s parents indicated that his earlier marriage had taken place and been formalised at Hospete, where the petitioner was said to reside.

The complaint alleged that the petitioner knew of that marriage and participated in the subsequent marriage without disclosing it. Whether he had such knowledge, participated in the later marriage, or acted with the requisite dishonest intention were matters for investigation; the court declined to resolve them on the petitioner’s assertion that he was only a friend.

It likewise held that the petitioner’s contention concerning liability for the alleged second marriage did not, by itself, justify quashing at the threshold, particularly while investigation against him remained incomplete.

The court therefore did not finally determine whether the ingredients of any particular offence were made out.

It left the petitioner at liberty to challenge the charge sheet, if filed, in accordance with law.