Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed In Entirety Merely Because Section 498A IPC Is Not Sustainable Due To Invalid Marriage: Calcutta High Court

"A proceeding is not liable to be quashed in its entirety merely because one of the sections invoked may not ultimately be sustained." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 15, 2026, held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) merely because the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) may be doubtful due to an invalid marriage, provided other distinct cognizable offences are disclosed.

A single bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta observed that "whether Section 498A is attracted on these facts is a matter for the trial court at the stage of charge or trial," refusing to scuttle prosecution against a police constable accused of concealing his religious identity, name, and marital status to induce a woman into a temple marriage and physical relations.

The de facto complainant initiated criminal proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC alleging that the petitioner, a police constable, concealed his real name and religion, falsely represented himself as a Hindu bachelor named "Rajib Sarkar," and married her in a Hindu temple before cohabiting in a rented accommodation. Upon discovering his true identity as Md. Rafikul Islam and his subsisting marriage, she was allegedly subjected to physical assault, confinement, and non-consensual intercourse. Following the culmination of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet under Sections 419, 420, 498A, 323, 416, 120B, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, prompting the petitioners to seek quashing of the proceedings before the High Court.

The primary questions before the High Court were whether criminal proceedings disclosing allegations of impersonation, assault, and cheating could be quashed under Section 482 CrPC solely because the validity of the marriage was disputed for invoking Section 498A IPC. The Court was also called upon to determine whether the consent of the complainant was vitiated by a misconception of fact under Section 90 IPC, and whether exoneration in departmental proceedings would terminate the parallel criminal prosecution.

High Court Cannot Conduct Mini-Trial Under Section 482 CrPC

Justice Gupta held that the defence material produced by the petitioners to claim that the relationship was consensual and that the complainant was herself married cannot be weighed at the threshold under Section 482 CrPC. The Court underscored that documents relied upon by an accused must be of sterling and unimpeachable quality to warrant summary termination of proceedings without a trial.

"In a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court does not weigh the petitioners’ documents against the prosecution case or hold an inquiry into the genuineness or falsification of the allegations. The material relied upon does not meet the standard of being unimpeachable and of sterling quality, as required in the decision relied upon by the Petitioners in Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor to justify interference."

Concealment Of Identity Differs From Mere Breach Of Promise To Marry

Addressing the offences of cheating and personation under Sections 416, 419, and 420 of the IPC, the bench rejected the reliance placed by the accused on Rajnish Singh @ Soni v. State of U.P. The Court observed that the controversy did not stem from a simple subsequent breach of a promise to marry, but involved deliberate suppression of identity, religion, and civil status to obtain consent.

The bench emphasized that whether the consent given by the woman was vitiated under Section 90 IPC due to a misconception of fact must necessarily be adjudicated during trial through evidence. The Court found that where an accused assumes a fabricated persona to solicit physical relations and induce a ceremonial marriage, the statutory bar against quashing operates forcefully.

Partial Infirmity In Charge Sheet Does Not Invalidate Entire Prosecution

The petitioners contended that under the Apex Court's precedents in Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of M.P. and P. Sivakumar v. State, prosecution under Section 498A IPC cannot stand if the marriage itself is void or legally invalid. Rejecting this as a ground to terminate the case, the High Court ruled that infirmity in one penal provision does not warrant quashing the entire case where other distinct cognizable offences exist.

"The allegations of assault, wrongful confinement, sexual intercourse without consent and forcibly, intimidation and deception are distinct and independently disclose cognizable offences. A proceeding is not liable to be quashed in its entirety merely because one of the sections invoked may not ultimately be sustained."

Allegations Against Relatives Not Omnibus In Nature

Dealing with the plea of petitioner nos. 2 to 11 that they were falsely implicated relatives who never met the complainant, the bench noted that their defense was a mere plea of denial. The Court highlighted that the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the medical examination report from the Khargram Rural Hospital evidenced bodily injuries inflicted during an alleged physical assault at Murshidabad.

The bench reiterated that the grant of regular bail to family members carries no bearing on an application under Section 482 CrPC. As the allegations could not be categorized as omnibus or inherently improbable at the threshold, the relatives were required to face trial.

Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Does Not Bar Criminal Prosecution

The Court firmly dismissed the contention that the criminal case must fall because charges of impersonation and assault could not be proven against the petitioner in Birbhum District Police Force Case No. 06/22. Distinguishing Ashoo Surendranath Tewari v. DSP and Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of W.B., the Court observed that departmental enquiries and criminal trials operate in entirely different realms.

The bench explained that an administrative enquiry differs from a criminal prosecution in its object, forum, and standard of proof. The Court held that a failure by the complainant to produce evidence before a departmental enquiry officer is not an adjudication on merits regarding the falsity of allegations, and does not render the criminal prosecution an abuse of judicial process.

"There is no single central legislation or Act passed by the Parliament of India that defines or even recognizes 'love jihad', let alone criminalise it."

Judicial Clarification On The Absence Of Law On 'Love Jihad'

The Court took serious exception to the arguments advanced by the State and the de facto complainant labelling the dispute as an instance of "love jihad." Justice Gupta unequivocally ruled that the penal matrix contains no such recognized offence, and that courts must confine their scrutiny strictly to statutory infractions recognized by Parliament.

"There is no single central legislation or Act passed by the Parliament of India that defines or even recognizes 'love jihad', let alone criminalise it. Furthermore, West Bengal does not have an active law specifically against the same or anti conversion legislation in effect. The allegation of suppression remains relevant to Sections 416, 419 and 420 IPC, namely, whether the petitioner no. 1 represented himself as an unmarried Hindu named 'Rajib Sarkar' and whether the consent of the opposite party no. 2 was obtained on that footing."

Adherence To Principles In Neeharika Infrastructure

Reaffirming the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court noted that inherent powers must be exercised sparingly and with utmost circumspection. The bench reiterated that High Courts cannot scuttle investigations or stifle statutory prosecutions where the charge sheet and case diary prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable crimes.

The Court concluded that entering into the veracity of rival factual claims—such as allegations of extortion and consensual physical relations raised by the accused—would impermissibly degenerate Section 482 CrPC proceedings into a mini-trial before recording evidence.

Holding the revisional application to be entirely devoid of merits, the High Court dismissed the petition, vacated all subsisting interim orders, and directed the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law. The ruling confirms that an accused cannot evade criminal trial on substantive counts of cheating and physical assault merely by asserting that a ceremonial inter-faith marriage lacked statutory validity under matrimonial personal laws.

Date of Decision: October 15, 2026