Mere knowledge of a prior marriage does not establish relatives’ conspiracy to commit bigamy.

The second respondent married A1 on 4 September 2017. The prosecution alleged that A1 had previously registered a marriage with L.W.8 in 2015, concealed it from the second respondent, and later obtained money from him for the benefit of A2 and A3.

A2 to A9, relatives of A1, were alleged to have known of the earlier marriage and conspired with A1 to conceal it; A6 was also alleged to have conveyed a threat through a mediator.

The petitioners, charged under Sections 417, 420, 495, 120-B and 506(ii) IPC, invoked Section 528 BNSS to quash the final report, arguing, among other things, that cognizance of the Section 495 offence on a police report was barred by Section 198 CrPC and that the allegations did not disclose their individual involvement.

1. Whether the allegations and materials in the final report disclosed the ingredients of cheating under Sections 417 and 420 IPC, or criminal intimidation under Section 506(ii) IPC, against A2 to A9.

2. Whether A2 to A9, none of whom allegedly contracted a subsequent marriage, could be proceeded against for the Section 495 IPC offence on the basis of abetment or conspiracy, and whether the evidence disclosed a conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC.

3. Whether the proceedings against A2 to A9 were liable to be quashed, including in light of the asserted bar under Section 198 CrPC and the State’s reliance on Section 155(4) CrPC.

Cheating requires deception, fraudulent or dishonest inducement, resulting harm, and dishonest intention at the inception; Section 420 IPC additionally requires inducement to deliver property.

Section 495 IPC applies to a person who commits bigamy under Section 494 IPC after concealing the former marriage from the person with whom the later marriage is contracted; a relative who did not marry can be proceeded against only if there is material supporting abetment or conspiracy.

Criminal conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act, and relationship, association, or knowledge alone does not establish such an agreement.

Criminal intimidation requires sufficiently specific allegations of a threat; vague allegations do not make out the offence.

Section 198 CrPC’s cognizance bar and Section 155(4) CrPC’s provision for investigation where a case includes both cognizable and non-cognizable offences were raised; the Court assumed Section 155(4) could apply but resolved the petition on the merits of the alleged offences.

The alleged money was given by the second respondent to A1, his wife, and the final report identified no representation or inducement by the petitioners, nor documentary evidence of the transfer; accordingly, the ingredients of Sections 417 and 420 IPC were not made out against them.

The threat allegation against A6 lacked particulars as to date, time and words, while no threat was alleged against the other petitioners.

Since none of the petitioners had contracted a marriage, liability under Section 495 IPC required material showing abetment or conspiracy. L.W.8’s statement that A1’s relatives had quarrelled with his mother did not attribute a specific act to any petitioner or show that they agreed with A1 to deceive the second respondent; no witness, including the marriage mediator, described a relevant representation by the petitioners.

The Court did not determine whether the 2015 registered marriage was valid, as that question concerned persons who were not before it.

It considered the alleged family relationship and the naming of relatives, without specific allegations of active involvement, insufficient to sustain the prosecution.

It directed that the trial against A1 proceed in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations, and stated that the second respondent remained free to pursue other remedies available in law.

The connected criminal miscellaneous petitions were closed.