High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Regarding Concealment of Previous Marriage and Misrepresentation of Employment Status

The petitioner married Respondent No. 2 on 24.11.2025.

The petitioner claimed he disclosed his previous marriage and 2023 divorce decree prior to the engagement.

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner and a mediator (Vindvasini Prasad Shukla) concealed the previous marriage and misrepresented the petitioner’s employment income as ₹90,000 per month.

After leaving the matrimonial home on 01.12.2025, Respondent No. 2 lodged an FIR (Crime No. 0505/2025) under Sections 318(4) and 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

A chargesheet was filed on 29.12.2025, and the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, took cognizance on 08.01.2026.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and consequential proceedings.

1. Whether the FIR and chargesheet disclose the commission of a cognizable offence justifying the exercise of quashing powers under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS.

2. Whether the dispute is purely matrimonial in nature or involves elements of criminality such as deception and inducement.

3. Whether disputed questions of fact regarding prior disclosure of marriage can be adjudicated in a quashing petition.

Principles of inherent jurisdiction for quashing criminal proceedings under Section 528 of the BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC).

Neharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing that quashing powers should be exercised sparingly and only to determine if allegations prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, without evaluating merits or reliability.

State Represented by the Inspector of Police v. M. Maridoss, holding that the High Court is not required to conduct a "mini-trial" or appreciate evidence at the quashing stage.

The Court observed that the FIR and chargesheet prima facie contain allegations of concealment of material facts (previous marriage) and misrepresentation of financial status, which attract penal provisions.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the dispute was purely matrimonial, noting that the elements of deception and inducement indicated criminality.

Regarding the petitioner’s defense of "prior disclosure," the Court held this to be a disputed question of fact requiring an appreciation of evidence that can only be conducted by the trial court.

Furthermore, the Court noted that it had already dismissed a similar petition filed by the co-accused mediator, and the petitioner’s case stood on similar footing.

The Court held that the material collected during the investigation disclosed cognizable offences and that the defense's claims must be tested at trial.

The petition was dismissed, and the prayer to quash FIR No. 0505/2025 and the order of cognizance dated 08.01.2026 was denied.