Holding

A High Court may quash a criminal proceeding under Section 482 CrPC only when the complaint does not prima facie constitute an offence or when its continuation would be an abuse of process; otherwise the proceeding must not be quashed.

Summary

Smt. Chand Dhawan filed a criminal complaint alleging bigamy under Sections 494 and 109 IPC, claiming her husband Jawahar Lal had married another woman while their marriage subsisted. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons against the husband, the second wife, and their parents. The husband moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the complaint, which the High Court did on the ground that the allegations were contradictory and the proceeding would abuse the court process. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction only when the complaint does not prima facie disclose an offence or when continuation would be an abuse of process, and it cannot probe the truth of unproven allegations at the cognizance stage. The Court found that the complaint clearly disclosed an offence of bigamy and that the High Court had erred in quashing it, though it noted that proceedings against respondents 3‑7 were unwarranted. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, the quashing order set aside with respect to respondents 1 and 2, and the complaint restored against them.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court may quash a criminal proceeding under Section 482 CrPC when the complaint prima facie discloses an offence.
Whether the High Court can examine the truth of allegations and rely on unproven material to decide quashment.
Whether continuation of the proceeding would amount to abuse of the process of the court.
Whether the proceedings against respondents 3 to 7, who were allegedly vexatiously implicated, should continue.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 494

Subjects

bigamySection 482 inherent jurisdictionquashing criminal proceedingsabuse of processcriminal complaintmarriage dissolutionevidentiary burdenprima facie offence

Judgment

SMT. CHAND DHAWAN A
v.
__..(
JAWAHAR LAL AND ORS.

APRIL 28, 1992 .

(S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND M. FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] B

./
·---{ Criminal Law

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
c
--... Section 482-lnherent jurisdiction-Exercise of-Criminal proceed-
ings-When could be quashed-Whether High Court justified in· quashing the
)-
complaint when allegations prima f acie constitute an offence.
).- The appellant was married to the first respondent. After sometime
the s119uses started living separately. A spurt of litigation followed there- D
after. While proceedings for dissolution of the marriage, custody of the
minor children and criminal prosecution were pending between the par-
ties, the appellant instituted a complaint before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, for bigamy alleging that the first respondent bad subsequently
married the second respondent and that the parents of the Respondents
No. 1 and 2, in conspiracy intentionally abetted the performance of the
E
second marriage with the full knowledge that the first marriage of the first

r respondent with the appellant was subsisting. Respondents No. 1 and 2
and their parents were arrayed as accused. After recording the statement
on oath of the complainant and two witnesses, the magistrate took cog-
nizance of the complaint for offences under sections 494 and 109 l.P.C., F
and issued summons to the accused persons. The accused appeared before
court and were released on bail. Thereafter on an application moved by
the first respondent under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court quashed
the complaint and the subsequent proceedings, holding that in view of the

- ·r- contradictions which went to the root of the case including the jurisdiction
of the trial court to take cognizance and proceed with the complaint in
question, the continuance of the proceedings on the basis of the complaint
G

.... before the trial court would amount to abuse of the process of the court.

In the appeal, by special leave, before this Court on behalf of the
)-~,
appellant-wife, it was contended that the High Court, in exercising the H
837
!~
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 2 S.C.R.

A jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C., bad ·11,1ade a probe into the truth-
f'Ulness of the allegations made and proceeded to analyse the evidence >-
which could be produeed in support of the allegations overlooking the
well-settled principle laid down for guidance in this regard.
..
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the circumstan-
B ces of the case had necessarily to .be taken into account to determine
whether the allegations made by the complainant were frivolous or ~
vexatious and actuated by oblique motive and that in the facts and cir-
cumstances of the instant ~se, where the factum of the alleged marria~
stood disproved by the contradictory' statement made earlier to the com-
c plainant, the proceedings could not be justified and the High Court had
....-.
rightly quashed the same. -t

Allowing the appeal, partly, this Court, -..(
HELD : 1.1. The High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction of
D quashing a criminal proceeding only when the allegations made in the
complaint do not constitute an otTence or that the exercise of the power is
necessary either to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. No inflexible guidelines or rigid
formula can be set c.ut and it depends upon the facts and circumstances
of each case wherein· such power should be exercised. When the allegations
E
in the complaint prima f acie constitute the otTence against ~ny or all of the
respondents, in the absence of materials on record to show that the
continuance ·of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the
court or would defeat the ends of justice1 the High Court would not be
justified in quashing the complaint. [842 D-F]
F
1.2. In the present case, the allegations in the complaint are specific
and clear that during the subsistence of an earlier valid marriage, respon-
dent Nos. 1 and 2 have entered into a second marriage and have thereby
committed an offence falling under section 494 I.P.C. The complainant had
affirmed the fact on oath. The two witnesses produced by the complainant
G before the magistrate have supported that case. Based on the statement
on oath of the complainant read along with the evidence of the two
witnesses thus recorded and the materials available before the magistrate
to get h~mself satisfied that cognizance should be taken and process issued,
the. magistrate was satisfied that an offence bad been disclosed and ac-
. H cordingly the summons ha~ been issued. The High Court was persuaded
SMT. DHAWAN v. JAWAHAR LAL [FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 839

to take the view that the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse A
of the process of the court only on the basis of the additional materials
produced by the respondents. The materials thus produced have not been
admitted or accepted by the appellant. The truth or otherwise of the
allegations in the complaint is a matter for proof. When the materials
relied on by the respondent require to be proved, no inference can be drawn B
on the basis of those materials to conclude that the complaint is false. The
High Court was not justified in assuming that the first information report
had been lodged by the complainant/appellant solely because she had not
filed any reply before the High Court denying the fact. No sufficient
opportunity was given to the appellant to do so. The affidavits of one of
the persons who is stated to have performed the ceremonies would also be C
of no assistance in drawing ~ny.inferenee either way. [842 G-H, 843 A-CJ

1.3. The High Court has, therefore, clearly erred in reaching the
conclusion that the proceedings were liable to be quashed.

1.4. The issue of process to Respondents No. 1 and 2 is proper and D
the proceedings have to continue against them. But there is no justification
to continue the proceedings against Respondents No. 3 to 7 as they had
been unnecessarily and vexatiously roped in and the allegations against
them are vague and unsupported by any material.
E
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., [1990) SCR
Supp. (3) 259 and State of Bihat v. Murad Ali Khan, AIR 1989 SC 1,
referred to.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
269 of 1992.. F

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.1991 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in Crl. Misc. No. 5841-M of 1990.

Gobinda Mukhoty and Mridula Ray for the Appellant.
G
... G.L. Sanghi and P.P. Tripathi for the Respondents .

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

FATHIMA BEEVI, J. Leave granted. H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 2 S.C.R.

A The appellant, Smt. Chand Dhawan, was married to the first respon-
dent, Jawahar Lal, on 19.9.1972. After three children were born, the
spouses started to live separate. The children are left with the father. A
spurt of litigation followed thereafter. Proceedings for dissolution of the
marriage, custody of the niinor children and criminal prosecution are
B pending between the parties. While so, the appellant instituted a complaint
before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, for bigamy alleging that
Jawahar Lal married Shashi Arora at Amritsar on 8.2.1989; that the parents
of Jawahar Lal and Shashi Arora in conspiracy intentionally abetted the
performance of the second marriage with the full knowledge that the first

C
marriage of Jawahar Lal with the appellant, Smt. Chand Dhawan, was
subsisting. Jawahar Lal, Shashi Arora, the parents of Jawahar Lal and the
parents of Shashi -Arora were arrayed as accused. After recording the
statement on oath of the complainant and two witnesses, the learned
---
magistrate took cognizance of the complaint for offences under sections
494 and 109, I.P.C., and issued summons to the accused persons. The
D accused appeared before court and were released on bail. The first respon-
dent, Jawahar Lal, thereafter moved the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana under section 482, Cr.P.C., for quashing the complaint. The High
Court by the impugned judgment/order dated 18.3.1991 quashed the com·
plaint and the subsequent proceedings. The appellant being aggrieved has
filed the appeal on special leave granted.
E
The High Court in allowing the miscellaneous petition filed by the
first respondent has said that in view of the contradictions which go to the
root of the case including the jurisdiction of the trial court to take cog-
nizance and proceed with the impugned complaint, the continuance of the
F proceedings on the basis of the impugned complaint before the trial court
at Amritsar would certainly amount to the abuse of the process of the
court.
- ....,
The two grounds for arriving at this conclusion are that (1) the
appellant had lodged the first information report before the poliee on
G 303.1989 and under section 494 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the
marriage between the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was solemnised at Greater
Kailash, New Delhi in .February 1989 quite contrary to the allegations
under the present complaint and (2) Vijay Bharti, one of the persons,
-.
stated to have performed the 'second marriage has filed an affidavit dated
H 7.5.1990 before the court stating that he did not perform any such marriage.
SMT. DHAWAN v. JAWAHAR LAL [FATillMA BEEVI, J.) 841

The complainant had emphatically stated before the High· Court that. the A
-~ documents relied on by the respondents are not genuine, no such first
information had been lodged by the appellant before the Police Station,
NOIDA, Ghaziabad and that Vijay Bharti has also not sworn the affidavit
produced in court. The objection was rejected by the High Court stating
that the specific averments made in the petition have not been contradicted
B
by the complainant by filing the reply.
--{
The learned counsel for the appellant contended before us that the
High Court in exercising the jurisdiction under section 482, Cr.RC., has

-
t
made a probe into the truthfulness of the allegations made and proceeded
to analyse the evidence which could be produced in support of the allega-
tions and in so doing had overlooked the well-settled principle laid down
c
for guidance while exercising the inherent power. According to the appel-
)--- lant, the learned magistrate has taken congnizane of the complainant on
the basis of the allegations made which clearly reveal the commission of an
offence. The materials produced by the complainant to satisfy the
D
magistrate at the initial stage has been duly considered before issuing
process and the question \yhether the case would result in conviction or
not is not a matter for consideration at that stage and there was, therefore,
no justification for the High Court to quash the proceedings relying on the
materials which have not been legally proved. It is vehementaly contended
that the copy of the first information report filed before the court is not E

r genuine, that the witness Vijay Bharti had filed an affidavit before this
Court denying the genuineness of the affidavit stated to have been filed
before the High Court and in this state of the facts it was pre-nature to
conclude that it would be an abuse of the process of the court to proceed
with the complaint. The learned counsel has also relied on the decision of F
this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., JT
[199o] 4 SC 650.

The learned counsel for the respondent in supportin& the impugned
order of the High Court has maintained that the circumstances of the case
have necessarily to be taken into account to determine whether the allega- G
tions made by the complainant are frivolous or vexatious and actuated by
· oblique motive and that in the facts and circumstances of the case where
the factum of the alleged marriage stands disproved by the contridictory
statement made earlier to the complainant, the pr~ could·not,:be.
>----.
J
justified and the High Cowt has rightiy quashed the same. H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19<J2] 2 S.C.R.

A The High Court, relying on the decision of this Court in State of Bihar )..._
v. Murad Ali Khan, AIR 1989 SC 1, pointed out that when the High Court
is called upon' to exercise the jurisdiction to quash a proceeding at the stage
of the magistrate taking cognizance of an offence, the High Court is guided
by the allegations whether those allegations set out in the complaint or the
charge-sheet do not in law constitute or spell out any offence and that
B resort to criminal proceedings within the circumstances amount to an abuse
of the process of the court or not. The High Court, has however, in
approaching the question misdirected itself in analysing the truth or other-
wise of the Allegations oA the basis of the materials which could not be

c
relied on without legal proof. It is not disputed that the complaint filed by
the appellant does disclose an offence under section 494, 1.P.C. The
allegations made by the complainant in law constitute and spell out an
offence. If so, the only question that could have been considered at this
-
t
'
stage is whether the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of -~
the process of the court. This court has in various decisions examined the
scope of the power under section 482, Cr.P.C., and has reiterated the
D
principle that the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction of
quashing a criminal proceeding only when the allegations made in the
complaint do not constitute an offence or that the exercise of the power is
necessary either to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or
otherwise to secure to ends of justice. No inflexible quidelines or rigid
E foumula can be set out and it depends upon the facts and circumstances
of each case wherein such power .should be exercised. When the allegations ---,,
in the complaint prima f acie const\tute the offence against any or all of the
respondents in the absence of materials on record to show that the con-
tinuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court
F or would defeat the ends of justice, the High Court would not be justified
in quashing the complaint.

In the present case, we have stated that the allegations in the com-
plaint are specific and clear that during the subsistence of an earlier valid
marriage the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have entered into a second marriage
G and have thereby committed an offence falling under section 494, 1.P.C.
-..-
The complainant bad affirmed the fact on oath. The two witnesses
·produced by the complainant before the magistrate have supported that
case. Based on. the statement on oath of the complainant read along with
the evidence of the two witnesses thus recorded and the· materials available
H before the magistrate to get himself satisfied that cognizance should be
SMT. DHAWAN v. JAWAHAR LAL [FATillMA BEEVI, J.] 843

taken and process issued, the magistrate was satisfied that an offence had A
been disclosed and accordingly the summons had been issued. The High
Court was persuaded to take the view that the continuance of the proceed-
ings would be an abuse of the process of the court only on the basis of the
additional .materials produced by the respondents. The materials thus
produced have not been admitted or accepted by the appellant. The truth B
or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint is a matter for proof. When
the materials relied on by the respondent require to be proved, no in- '
ference can be drawn on the basis of those materials to conclude that the
complaint is false. The High Court was not justified in .assuming that the
first information report had been lodged by the complainant/appellant
solely because she had not filed any reply before the High Court denying C
the fact. It does not appear that the sufficient opportunity was given to the
appellant to do so. The affidavits of one of the persons who is stated to
have performed the ceremonies would also be of no assistance in drawing
any inference either way.
D
We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court has clearly erred
in reaching the conclusion that the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
In the light of the allegations made in the complaint and the materials
produced in support of those allegations by the appellant before the
magistrate, the issue of the process to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who
are alleged to have solemnised the second marriage during the subsistence E
of an earlier valid marriage of the appellant is proper and when process
has been issued, the proceedings have to continue in accordance with law
against these respondents Nos. 1 and 2. So far as other repondents are
concerned, it may be said that they had been unnecessarily and vexatiously
roped in. The allegations in the complaint so far as these respondents are
F
concerned are vague. It cannot be assumed that they had by their presence
or otherwise facilitated the solemnisation of a second marriage with the
knowledge that the earlier marriage was subsisting. The explanation of the
first respondent that the second respondent has been functioning as a
governess to look afte~ his children in the absence of the mother who had
left them implies that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are living together. In this G
background, the allegations made against respondents 3 to 7 imputing them
with guilty knowledge unsupported by other material would not justify the
continuance of the proceedings against those respondents.

In our view, the complaint before the learned magistrate is to be H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992t 2 S.C.R.

A proceeded with against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 only.

Accordingly, we allow·the appeal to the extent of setting aside the
im(?ugned judgment so far as respondents Nos~ 1 and 2 are concerned and
restoring the complaint to be proceeded with as against these two respon-
' dents and to be disposed of in accordance with law.

N.P.V. Appeal partly allowed.