Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings in bigamy case: Shafiya Khan vs. State of U.P. (2022) INSC 123 (10 February 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 10 February 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 123

Judges: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka

Can a criminal case for bigamy and forgery be sustained against a woman who remarried after her first marriage was dissolved by a village panchayat, and the second marriage was duly registered? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a woman was accused of bigamy and forgery by her brother-in-law. The Court examined the facts and circumstances of the case and determined whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the woman were justified. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Abhay S. Oka, with the opinion authored by Justice Rastogi.

Case Background

The appellant, Shafiya Khan, was born into a Hindu family and was married at the age of 17 in May 2009 to Shiv Gobind Prajapati. This marriage was never consummated. In 2014, the marriage was dissolved through a village panchayat. Subsequently, Shafiya met Mohd. Shameem Khan and married him on December 11, 2016, under Sharia law, with a marriage certificate issued by the competent authority. A male child was born from this marriage on September 23, 2017. Unfortunately, Mohd. Shameem Khan passed away on December 8, 2017. Following her husband’s death, Shafiya received a compassionate appointment as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (A.N.M.) at King George Medical University, Lucknow, on May 19, 2018. She also received her late husband’s terminal benefits. However, on August 19, 2018, she was allegedly thrown out of her matrimonial home by her brother-in-law, the second respondent, with her eleven-month-old child.

The brother-in-law then filed a complaint against Shafiya, leading to an FIR being registered on July 9, 2019, under Sections 494, 495, 416, 420, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The chargesheet was filed on March 23, 2021, adding Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC. The trial court took cognizance of the charges and summoned Shafiya. She then approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for quashing of the proceedings, which was dismissed by the High Court on September 8, 2021. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed Shafiya Khan’s petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, which sought to quash the criminal proceedings against her. The High Court did not find sufficient grounds to interfere with the trial court’s decision to take cognizance of the charges against her. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):

• Section 494 of the IPC: Deals with the offense of marrying again during the lifetime of a husband or wife.
  
  “494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.—Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 495 of the IPC: Addresses the offense of concealing a previous marriage while entering into a subsequent marriage.
  
  “495. Concealment of former marriage while marrying again.—Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 416 of the IPC: Deals with the offense of cheating by personation.
  
  “416. Cheating by personation.—A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.”
• Section 420 of the IPC: Addresses the offense of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
  
  “420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 504 of the IPC: Deals with the offense of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
  
  “504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.—Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 506 of the IPC: Addresses the offense of criminal intimidation.
  
  “506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.—Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.—And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 467 of the IPC: Deals with the offense of forgery of valuable security, will, etc.
  
  “467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.—Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 468 of the IPC: Addresses the offense of forgery for the purpose of cheating.
  
  “468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.—Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 471 of the IPC: Deals with the offense of using as genuine a forged document.
  
  “471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.—Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.”

The High Court’s power to quash criminal proceedings is derived from Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which allows the court to make orders to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the criminal proceedings were initiated due to the brother-in-law’s malafide intentions after the death of her husband.
• The counsel contended that the brother-in-law was primarily interested in obtaining the terminal benefits and compassionate appointment that the appellant received.
• It was submitted that the appellant’s first marriage was never consummated and was dissolved by the village panchayat in 2014.
• The counsel argued that the second marriage was performed in 2016 under Sharia law, and a marriage certificate was issued by a competent authority.
• It was pointed out that no complaint was ever made by her late husband during his lifetime regarding their matrimonial relationship.
• The appellant’s counsel stated that there was no evidence to support the allegations in the complaint and that the chargesheet did not disclose how the marriage certificate was forged.
• The counsel submitted that the continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant would be an abuse of the process of law and cause mental harassment, especially since she is the sole breadwinner for her family and has a minor child to care for.
• The counsel relied on the principles laid down in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] to argue that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offense.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The counsel for the State and the complainant jointly submitted that the charge sheet was filed after investigation, indicating a prima facie case against the appellant.
• They argued that the High Court had appreciated the material on record and found no reason to interfere under Section 482 of the CrPC.
• They contended that the High Court’s judgment did not require interference from the Supreme Court.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue revolved around:

• Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant for offences under Sections 494, 495, 416, 420, 504, 506, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC were justified, given the facts and circumstances of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335]* to reiterate the principles for quashing criminal proceedings, emphasizing that such powers should be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of law.
• The Court also relied on Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others [AIR 2021 SC 1918]* to further reinforce the guidelines for quashing criminal proceedings.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of factual basis for the allegations made in the complaint. The Court noted that the appellant’s first marriage was not consummated and was dissolved by the village panchayat. The second marriage was performed under Sharia law and was duly registered. The Court also found that the brother-in-law’s complaint was likely motivated by his desire to gain access to the terminal benefits and compassionate appointment that the appellant had received. The Court emphasized that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of the process of law and were causing mental trauma to the appellant, especially given her role as the sole breadwinner for her family.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by the factual circumstances of the case, with legal principles playing a secondary role. The Court’s emphasis was on the lack of evidence and the malafide intentions of the complainant.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant. The Court found that the allegations in the FIR lacked factual support and that the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s first marriage was not consummated and was dissolved by the village panchayat, and the second marriage was performed under Sharia law with a marriage certificate issued by a competent authority.

The Court observed that “there was no material placed on record by the complainant to justify the bald allegations which were made in the complaint on the basis of which FIR was registered.” The Court further noted that “documentary evidence on record clearly supports that her Nikah Nama was duly registered and issued by competent authority and even the charge sheet filed against her does not prima facie discloses how the marriage certificate was forged.” The Court concluded that “no offence of any kind as has been alleged in the FIR, has been made out against the appellant and if we allow the criminal proceedings to continue, it will be nothing but a clear abuse of the process of law.”

Key Takeaways

• Criminal proceedings for bigamy and forgery cannot be sustained if the second marriage is registered and the first marriage was not consummated and was dissolved by a village panchayat.
• Courts should exercise their power under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent abuse of the process of law and protect individuals from unnecessary harassment.
• Allegations in a complaint must have some factual basis to support them, and bald allegations are not sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings.
• The intent behind a complaint is a relevant factor in determining whether criminal proceedings are justified.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant in reference to FIR No.0227 of 2019 dated 9th July, 2019, under Sections 494, 495, 416, 420, 504 & 506 of the IPC, lodged at PS Bazar Khala, District Lucknow, U.P.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal proceedings for bigamy and forgery cannot be sustained if the second marriage is registered and the first marriage was not consummated and was dissolved by a village panchayat. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335] regarding the quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of factual basis for allegations in a complaint.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Shafiya Khan and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against her. The Court found that the allegations lacked factual basis and that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of law. This judgment underscores the importance of factual evidence in criminal complaints and the need to protect individuals from malicious prosecutions.