Criminal Proceedings Over Consensual Marriage Constitute Abuse of Law: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has quashed a criminal case against a man who married a woman previously engaged under a traditional 'SATA' arrangement, ruling that criminal law cannot be weaponized to penalize the voluntary marital choices of mature individuals. The court underscored that continuing prosecution in matters arising from personal vendettas over consensual relationships constitutes a gross abuse of the judicial process.

In a petition seeking the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a single-judge bench of Justice Vimal K. Vyas heard the challenge against an FIR involving allegations of bigamy and criminal intimidation. The Court examined whether a criminal machinery could be set in motion by a complainant whose claim of a prior marriage lacked evidentiary support and appeared to be a 'counterblast' to judicial protection granted to the couple.

Key Takeaways

Autonomy of Mature Individuals

The Court reaffirmed that two mature persons have the right to marry voluntarily, and such decisions cannot form the basis of criminal liability for the parties or their relatives.

Bar Against Retaliatory Litigations

Criminal proceedings initiated as a 'counterblast' to avoid the consequences of High Court protection orders are liable to be struck down to prevent the abuse of the legal process.

Evidentiary Requirement for Section 494

Prosecution for bigamy under the Indian Penal Code requires a prima facie proof of a valid first marriage, without which the charges cannot be sustained.

Prevention of Futile Trials

Where there is no likelihood of conviction based on the face of the FIR, continuing the proceedings is considered a 'futile exercise' that wastes judicial time.

Court Quashes 'Counterblast' FIR

The Court noted that the marriage between the applicant and the woman was registered and they had been blessed with two children. It observed that the complainant failed to provide a 'palatable explanation' for the delay in filing the FIR and could not prove a valid prior marriage.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties... it prima facie appears that the allegations made in the impugned FIR, even if, accepted at its face value, the same do not disclose the alleged offence. Furthermore, considering the fact that the application preferred by the co-accused persons seeking quashment of the impugned FIR has been allowed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, it prima facie appears that there is hardly any likelihood of the applicant-accused being convicted on the face of such FIR."

The Court has the following directions:
"The present application succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The First Information Report being No.11195017220650 of 2022 lodged before the Deodar Police Station, District Banaskantha, for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 494, 294(b), 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby ordered to be quashed and set-aside. All other consequential proceedings arising pursuant thereto are also quashed and set-aside."

Ratio

Criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 494, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code against individuals who have entered into a consensual and registered marriage constitute an abuse of the process of law if the allegations are found to be a retaliatory measure by a third party and lack the foundational elements of the alleged offences.

Background

The case originated from an FIR filed by the respondent, alleging that his 'wife' had eloped with the applicant. The applicant contended that the woman was never married to the complainant but was merely engaged in her childhood under a 'SATA' arrangement, which she never approved. After being allegedly kept captive by her family, the woman escaped to Ahmedabad, married the applicant on July 27, 2022, and registered the marriage.

Before the FIR was filed, the couple had approached the High Court in Special Criminal Application No.8391 of 2022 seeking protection, which was granted on August 10, 2022. The complainant filed the FIR shortly after being served with the protection order. The applicant also highlighted that a coordinate bench in Special Criminal Application No.9505 of 2022 had already quashed the FIR against other co-accused relatives, noting that the couple were mature individuals who made an independent decision to marry. Finding the prosecution to be a 'futile exercise', the Court made the rule absolute.

Case Details:
Case No.: R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 9166 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:65283
Case Title: Kajabhai Danabhai Patel Versus State Of Gujarat & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr Narendra L Jain
For the Respondent(s): Mr Bhargav Pandya, APP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(GUJ) 29051