Mere knowledge of a second marriage does not attract Section 494 liability without active participation or facilitation.

The complainant, Shakuntala Devi, alleged that she married Ram Pratap Singh on 07.12.1991 and was subjected by her husband, father-in-law Dashrath Singh, mother-in-law Phoolan Devi, and sister-in-law Vimla to dowry-related cruelty, assault, abuse and threats for failure to provide an additional ₹5,000 and a scooter.

She further alleged that, during an incident on 28.03.1997, Ram Pratap Singh disclosed that he had contracted a second marriage with Pinki while his marriage with the complainant subsisted.

An FIR was registered under Sections 494, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Although the police submitted a final report, the complainant’s protest petition was treated as a complaint, and statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded.

On that material, the Magistrate summoned all the accused for the aforesaid offences by order dated 03.03.2003.

The accused challenged the summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether the statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. disclosed sufficient prima facie material to summon the accused for offences under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act?

Whether the relatives of the husband could be summoned under Section 494 IPC merely on a general allegation that they assisted or conspired in the alleged second marriage, without specific allegations of active participation, facilitation or encouragement?

Whether the summoning order warranted interference in the exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

The Court applied Sections 494, 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

At the summoning stage, the Magistrate is required only to determine whether the complaint material establishes a prima facie case; a meticulous assessment of evidence or determination of probable conviction is impermissible.

Relying on S. Nitheen v. State of Kerala, (2024) 8 SCC 706, and Chand Dhawan v. Jawahar Lal, (1992) 3 SCC 317, the Court held that, for implicating persons other than the spouse under Section 494 IPC, there must be prima facie material showing their overt act or omission, active participation, facilitation or encouragement in the second marriage, together with the requisite knowledge of the subsisting first marriage; mere presence, knowledge or vague allegations are insufficient.

Relying also on Sivaraman Nair v. State of Kerala, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 672, the Court reiterated that Section 498-A IPC requires specific allegations of cruelty, such as a distinct dowry demand, threat or physical assault, and that omnibus allegations against relatives are insufficient.

Generalised and sweeping allegations against matrimonial relatives, unsupported by particularised acts, may constitute abuse of process.

The statements of Shakuntala Devi, Saroj and Munni Devi consistently alleged that the husband and his relatives demanded ₹5,000 and a scooter and subjected the complainant to harassment, assault, abuse and threats, ultimately forcing her out of the matrimonial home.

These allegations supplied sufficient prima facie material for proceeding under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

However, regarding Section 494 IPC, the complainant and Saroj attributed the disclosure of the second marriage only to Ram Pratap Singh and did not describe any specific role of the relatives in solemnising it.

Munni Devi’s assertion that the relatives had “assisted and conspired” was general and did not identify any overt act, participation, facilitation or encouragement by Dashrath Singh, Phoolan Devi or Vimla.

Applying S. Nitheen, Chand Dhawan and Sivaraman Nair, the Court held that such a general allegation could not sustain their prosecution for bigamy, although the material was adequate to proceed against the husband under Section 494 IPC.

The summoning order was upheld insofar as it summoned the accused for Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Ram Pratap Singh’s summoning under Section 494 IPC was also upheld.

The Court held that the relatives could not be prosecuted under Section 494 IPC in the absence of specific material showing their active participation in the second marriage.

The operative portion expressly quashed the summoning of Phoolan Devi @ Bhurani and Vimla under Section 494 IPC; paragraph 37 also refers to Dashrath Singh as covered by the same finding.

The interim order dated 02.07.2008 was vacated, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial preferably within one year without granting unnecessary adjournments.