No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman

"Judicial sanctity cannot be given to an adulterous relationship which is apparently existing between the petitioner and the detenu," High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, in a significant judgment, held that criminal proceedings for abduction cannot be quashed when a married woman enters into a second marriage during the subsistence of her first.

A bench of Justice M. A. Chowdhary observed that enticing away a married woman for illicit intercourse remains a recognized criminal offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the court cannot grant judicial sanctity to relationships that bypass legal dissolution of marriage.

The case reached the High Court through a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS], seeking the quashing of an FIR registered at Police Station Panzalla. The petitioners, including the woman (Petitioner No. 1) and her companion (Petitioner No. 2), claimed that the woman had escaped a forced, brutal marriage and was living in Delhi of her own volition.

The matter originated from a complaint filed by Respondent No. 2, the father-in-law of Petitioner No. 1, alleging that his daughter-in-law had been abducted by unknown persons at the behest of Petitioner No. 2. While Petitioner No. 1 alleged she was coerced into a marriage with the complainant’s son and subsequently fled to Delhi to pursue her career and stay with Petitioner No. 2, the complainant asserted that she was a legally wedded wife who was enticed away.

The primary question before the court was whether an FIR for abduction under Sections 87 and 49 of the BNS should be quashed when the alleged victim claims to have left voluntarily. The court was also called upon to determine the legal status of a second marriage contracted by a woman while her first marriage remained undissolved.

Status of the Alleged Abductee and Subsistence of First Marriage

The Court noted that while Petitioner No. 1 claimed to have escaped an illegal and forced marriage, her own statement recorded virtually before the Registrar (Judicial) admitted the performance of the first marriage. The Bench observed that despite her desire for a divorce, the marriage with the complainant’s son was performed in April 2025, and she moved to Delhi shortly thereafter in May 2025.

Court Explains Legal Consequences of Second Marriage Without Divorce

The Bench emphasized that the records, including a marriage certificate from an Arya Samaj Mandir in Delhi, indicated that the petitioners contracted a second marriage on May 28, 2025. Justice Chowdhary pointed out that this act occurred during the subsistence of the woman's earlier marriage with the complainant's son, which had not been legally dissolved through any competent authority or process.

"Without dissolution of the earlier marriage of the Petitioner No. 1, she is stated to have performed marriage with Petitioner No. 2, which also constitutes an offence of bigamy under Section 82 of BNS."

Applicability of Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

The Court highlighted that the act of enticing away a married woman with the intention of illicit intercourse is a specific criminal offence. It noted that Section 84 of the BNS is akin to Section 498 of the repealed Indian Penal Code [IPC]. The Bench reasoned that since the woman was still legally married to another man, her residence with and subsequent "marriage" to Petitioner No. 2 fell within the shadow of these penal provisions.

Investigation Into Abduction Allegations Must Proceed

The Court found that the allegations in the FIR did not suffer from any legal infirmity that would justify quashing the proceedings at the threshold. It observed that the police must be allowed to conclude the investigation to ascertain the truth of the abduction claim, especially given the complex marital status involved. The Bench held that scuttling the investigation at this stage would be an improper exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

"It appears that the complaint... for her alleged abduction, does not suffer from any infirmity, which may be classified into a case of abuse of the process of law in any manner."

No Judicial Sanctity for Relationships Overlapping Existing Marriages

Relying on a precedent from the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Soyab v. State of H.P., the Bench reiterated that the law cannot protect or validate relationships that are essentially adulterous or bigamous in nature. The Court maintained that the protection of the law is reserved for those who follow due legal process for the dissolution of marital ties before entering new ones.

"Judicial sanctity cannot be given to an adulterous relationship which is apparently existing between the petitioner and the detenu."

The High Court dismissed the petition, vacating the earlier stay on the investigation into FIR No. 0031 of 2025. However, to address the woman's fears regarding her safety, the Court directed the Investigating Agency to record her statement at a place where she feels safe, rather than requiring her to travel to the police station in Kashmir.

Date of Decision: 29 June 2026