Formal marriage not indispensable for Section 498A prosecution in a relationship in the nature of marriage, Calcutta High Court holds

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of G.R. Case No. 2793 of 2022 arising from Burdwan Police Station Case No. 587 of 2022, registered under Sections 498A, 420 and 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Charge Sheet No. 984 of 2022 dated 28.08.2022.

The opposite party no. 2 alleged that, after meeting the petitioner in 2019, he represented himself as an unmarried orphan, induced her to convert to Islam, and underwent a Muslim marriage ceremony with her on 02.07.2020.

The parties thereafter cohabited as husband and wife in rented premises. She later allegedly discovered that the petitioner was already married and claimed that he subjected her to physical and mental cruelty before assaulting and evicting her on 01.05.2022.

The landlord and the complainant’s parents gave statements supporting their cohabitation and the occurrence of a domestic dispute.

The petitioner contended that no valid marriage existed, particularly because the complainant’s previous marriage was allegedly subsisting and no formal Muslim marriage document was produced.

A subsequent matrimonial proceeding under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act was also relied upon to show the alleged subsistence of the earlier marriage.

1. Whether prosecution under Section 498A IPC is maintainable where the parties were in a relationship in the nature of marriage but the formal marriage was absent, invalid, or legally flawed.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the charge sheet and criminal proceedings when the parties’ marital status, prior marriage, conversion, and nature of cohabitation involve disputed questions of fact.

3. Whether the Supreme Court’s exposition in Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. applies to acts occurring before the date of that judgment.

The Court applied Section 498A IPC, which penalises cruelty by a husband or a relative of the husband, and Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Relying on Reema Aggrawal v. Anupam, (2004) 3 SCC 199, the Court held that “husband” may include a person who enters into a marital relationship, assumes or feigns the status of a husband, and subjects the woman to cruelty, even where the marriage is technically invalid.

Relying on Dr. Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1470, the Court applied a purposive interpretation of Section 498A, holding that a formal and legally flawless marriage is not an indispensable prerequisite where the relationship is in the nature of marriage and the statutory object is to prevent domestic cruelty.

The Court further applied the settled principle that proceedings should not be quashed under Section 482 CrPC where the allegations and investigation materials disclose a prima facie offence and the defence depends upon disputed questions of fact; the High Court must not conduct a mini-trial.

It also held that a judicial decision clarifying the meaning of an existing statutory provision is declaratory rather than retrospectively criminalising.

The Court found that the landlord’s statement and the statements of the complainant’s parents prima facie established that the parties shared a household and were socially represented as spouses.

The allegations that the petitioner concealed his existing marriage, induced the complainant into the relationship, and thereafter subjected her to cruelty brought the case within the protective and purposive scope of Section 498A as explained in Reema Aggrawal and Dr. Lokesh B.H.

The petitioner’s objections concerning the complainant’s prior marriage, the validity of conversion, the absence of marriage documents, and the precise nature of the relationship were treated as disputed factual matters requiring evidence and cross-examination, rather than grounds for threshold quashing.

Since the investigation had produced supporting witness statements and culminated in a charge sheet, the Court held that no manifest illegality or abuse of process was shown.

Applying the declaratory character of judicial interpretation, it also rejected the argument that Dr. Lokesh B.H. could not apply to the earlier conduct alleged in the case.

It answered the second issue in the negative, holding that Section 482 CrPC could not be invoked to resolve disputed questions concerning marital status, conversion, prior marriage, or deception at the threshold.

It further held that the interpretation in Dr. Lokesh B.H. was declaratory of the existing law and could apply to ongoing proceedings arising from earlier acts.

Accordingly, CRR 1457 of 2024 was dismissed; interim orders, if any, were vacated; no order as to costs was made; and the Trial Court was directed to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the incidental observations in the judgment.