-
by sayum
29 August 2026 3:15 PM
“Registration of Name in Family Register & Will Cannot Override Law – Second Marriage During Subistence of First Marriage is Void Under Hindu Law,” Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) dismissed a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, refusing to interfere with concurrent findings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar. The petitioners sought quashing of orders denying their discharge in a criminal case involving allegations of cheating, forgery, and fraudulent inheritance. The Court held that prima facie case existed based on the allegations and documents and observed that “a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife cannot be recognized under Hindu Law.”
Alleged Fraud in Succession Through Forged Identity—Civil Dispute Transformed into Criminal Case?
The case revolved around the petitioners' attempt to dismiss criminal proceedings against them under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 IPC. The core of the allegation was that Bhagwan Devi, claiming to be the second wife of Late Santram (a Deputy Secretary in Vigilance Commission), along with her daughter Sangeeta, fabricated their identity to usurp Santram’s property.
Petitioners argued that the issue was essentially civil in nature—a property dispute stemming from a will—and hence criminal proceedings were an abuse of process. They contended that they had a valid registered will and their names were lawfully entered in the family register.
However, the Court firmly rejected this argument, holding that: “Merely because there is a civil dispute and the civil proceedings are pending, the criminal prosecution cannot be quashed if prima facie offence is made out.”
A Web of Litigation and Competing Claims over Inheritance
The dispute arose after the death of Santram, who was survived by his first wife, Kamla Devi (respondent no. 2), and their children. Kamla Devi alleged that Bhagwan Devi and her daughter fraudulently got themselves registered in the family register and forged a will in their favour.
Kamla Devi first sought police action through multiple complaints which led to an FIR on November 10, 2016. Though police initially filed a final report citing no offence, her protest petition was allowed, and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate in 2018. Her claim also included that:
She discovered the forgery only when the petitioners attempted to take possession of her house.
Her husband Santram had never legally married Bhagwan Devi nor adopted Sangeeta.
She is the legally wedded wife and recipient of Santram’s pension.
Meanwhile, civil litigation was also underway for cancellation of the will.
“Groundless” Under Section 239 CrPC – When Can Accused Be Discharged?
The Court explained the test for discharge under Section 239 CrPC as laid down in State of Tamil Nadu v. R. Soundirarasu (2023) 6 SCC 768:
“The Magistrate shall discharge the accused if the charge is ‘groundless’—that is, if there is no legal evidence or facts making out an offence at all.”
At the same time, the Court emphasized that strong suspicion or prima facie material is enough to proceed to trial.
In the instant case, the Court noted several undisputed or unexplained facts pointing to the prima facie validity of the criminal charges:
Voter list records Bhagwan Devi as wife of another man (Premchand).
No evidence or date of valid marriage between Bhagwan Devi and Santram was disclosed.
Claim that Santram adopted Sangeeta as daughter was unsupported by any legal documentation.
During the lifetime of first wife Kamla Devi, any second marriage would be void under Hindu Law.
The Court thus held: “Even if married, the second wife cannot be legally wedded and her daughter cannot be treated as lawful child of Santram.”
“Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Quashed Just Because Civil Suit is Pending”: Reaffirming Supreme Court Precedents
In rejecting the petitioners’ plea that civil litigation should bar criminal trial, the Court relied on the latest Supreme Court ruling in Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy & Ors., (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428), which held:
“Pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists.”
The Court concluded that criminal intent and fraudulent representation were independently triable issues, irrespective of civil litigation.
Denial of Discharge Upheld – Criminal Trial to Proceed
Dismissing the Article 227 petition, the Court found no infirmity in the trial court or revisional court’s reasoning, and reaffirmed that:
“This Court does not find any illegality or error in the impugned orders… The petition is misconceived and lacks merit.”
Date of Decision: August 27, 2025
