Inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to quash an FIR where evidence suggests bigamy and adultery under the guise of consensual elopement.

The Petitioners, Ruksana Bano (Petitioner No. 1) and Nikhil Chokker (Petitioner No. 2), sought the quashing of FIR No. 0031/2025 registered at P.S. Panzalla under Sections 87 and 49 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

Petitioner No. 1, an adult from Baramulla, alleged she was forcibly married to Danish Khan (son of Respondent No. 2) on April 7, 2025, after being subjected to physical abuse and threats by her family

She claimed she escaped her matrimonial home on May 25, 2025, with the help of friends and flew to Delhi to join Petitioner No. 2

Conversely, Respondent No. 2 alleged that Petitioner No. 1 was a legally wedded wife who was abducted by two local associates at the behest of Petitioner No. 2

Evidence surfaced during proceedings showing the Petitioners performed a marriage ceremony at an Arya Samaj Mandir in Delhi on May 28, 2025, while the first marriage was allegedly subsisting

1. Whether the FIR for abduction and kidnapping should be quashed on the ground that the alleged abductee claimed to have left her home voluntarily.

2. Whether the court should grant judicial sanctity to a relationship where a woman enters a second marriage during the subsistence of her first marriage.

Section 87 of the BNS regarding kidnapping/abduction and Section 49 regarding the abetment of such acts.

Section 84 of the BNS (analogous to Section 498 IPC) regarding enticing away a married woman with illicit intent and Section 82 of the BNS regarding bigamy.

The court relied on the precedent Soyab v. State of H.P. and Ors (2026:HHC:17115), which establishes that judicial sanctity cannot be granted to an adulterous relationship existing outside a valid legal marriage.

The court observed that while Petitioner No. 1 claimed she was not abducted and left of her own accord, she admitted in her statement to being married to Danish Khan and sought a divorce.

The court noted that she arrived in Delhi and immediately contracted a second marriage with Petitioner No. 2 on May 28, 2025, without the legal dissolution of her first marriage.

The court reasoned that enticing a married woman for illicit purposes or entering into a bigamous marriage constitutes recognized criminal offences under the BNS.

Applying the Soyab precedent, the court found that it could not use its inherent powers to legitimize a relationship that bypasses the legal sanctity of an existing marriage.

Consequently, the allegations in the FIR and the findings of the preliminary investigation (showing Petitioner No. 2 funded the transport of a married woman) did not constitute an abuse of the process of law.

The Petition was dismissed, and all interim stay orders on the investigation were vacated. The court directed the Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation but ordered that the statement of Petitioner No. 1 be recorded at a place she feels safe, given her apprehensions regarding her life.