Deep Dey Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 6 Mar 2026

Calcutta High Court: Stamp Paper Marriage Has No Legal Validity; Bigamy Case Quashed

A single-judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that a marriage executed only through an agreement on stamp paper has no legal recognition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The complainant claimed that she married the petitioner through a written agreement on stamp paper. Later, the petitioner entered into a registered marriage with another woman. The complainant then filed a criminal case alleging bigamy under Section 494 IPC and cruelty under Section 498A IPC.

However, the Court clarified that Hindu law requires solemnisation of marriage through recognised rites and ceremonies. A mere written agreement cannot create a valid marriage. Therefore, criminal liability for bigamy cannot arise from such an arrangement. As a result, the Court held that continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

“A marriage by signature on an agreement paper is a mode of union unrecognised under this Act. It is a procedure unknown to Hindu Law; consequently, a ‘contractual marriage’ is a legal nullity.” (Para 13)

“Unless the marriage is ‘solemnized’ in the legal sense, it cannot be said to be a marriage for the purposes of the penal section.” (Para 14)

“There is a vital distinction between a marriage that is technically void… and a union that is legally non-existent from the start.” (Para 17)

“The shift from a ‘stamp paper marriage’ in the FIR to a ‘temple marriage’ in subsequent witness statements is a transparent attempt to cure a fatal legal infirmity.” (Para 18)

Decision of the Court

Therefore, the Calcutta High Court held that the alleged stamp-paper marriage had no legal validity under Hindu law. Consequently, the ingredients of Section 494 IPC and Section 498A IPC were not satisfied.

The Court thus exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. However, the Court clarified that the complainant may pursue other remedies available in law, if applicable.

Deep day Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 6 Mar 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Abuzar Ahmed and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 8 Jan 2026

Posted on February 17 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings initiated under Section 498A and Section 504 of the IPC, read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

The Court examined the complaint in detail. It found that the allegations described routine marital disagreements. They did not disclose grave cruelty or a specific unlawful dowry demand.

The Bench clarified an important principle. Section 498A IPC does not criminalise incompatibility or ordinary wear and tear of marriage. Criminal law cannot become a tool in matrimonial discord.

The following paragraphs formed the core reasoning of the Court:

Para 8
“A careful reading of the complaint reveals grievances such as dietary restrictions, expectations regarding attire, allocation of household responsibilities, disagreements over television preferences laced with a statement that the husband treated the complainant/wife as his servant. These allegations even if accepted at face value, portray a portrait of marital discord, but falls woefully short of depicting the statutory cruelty contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC.”
Para 8 (continued)
“If this is the complaint against the husband and in-laws, it cannot but be held that it is an abuse of the process of law, as minor skirmishes that happens in the family between the husband and the wife are projected to become a crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or even under Section 504 IPC.”
Para 9
“The law does not criminalize incompatibility, nor does it punish imperfect marriages. Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills. It is a targeted provision meant to address grave cruelty, conduct so wilful and pernicious so as to imperil life, limb or mental health or even harassment tethered to unlawful demands of dowry.”
Para 12
“The present case forms, as observed hereinabove, a classic illustration of the said abuse. The Apex Court, in such cases, holds that the offence should be nipped in the bud by interfering under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”
Para 26
“The allegations of cruelty, mental harassment and voluntarily causing hurt have been made with a mala-fide intent with vague and general allegations… It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.”

Abuzar ahmed Vs State of Karanataka on 8 Jan 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan
B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
Contact : 9606345150

Sanjay D Jain and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 26 Sep 2025

Posted on September 28, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A full bench of Apex Court ruled that none of the offences in the FIR were made out against the Petitioners.

From Paras 8-12,

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the FIR dated 06.02.2022 as well as the final report, we are of the considered opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants pursuant to the registration of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code deserve to be quashed.
9. Before examining the FIR along with the complaint of the complainant, we may refer to the parameters that are to be borne in mind while entertaining the prayer for quashing of the FIR. If the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, even when taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, quashing of the proceedings would be justified. Vague and general allegations cannot lead to forming of a prima facie case. As regards the ingredients for making out an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code is concerned, the requirement is that there has to be cruelty inflicted against the victim which either drives her to commit suicide or cause grave injury to herself or lead to such conduct that would cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. The latter part of the provision refers to harassment with a view to satisfy an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security raised by the husband or his relatives. These aspects have been considered in detail in a recent decision in Digambar and Another (supra) (to which one of us, B.R. Gavai, J, as he then was, was a party).
10. A perusal of the FIR and its consideration in entirety indicates that statements of a general nature have been made therein as against the present appellants. The complainant states that on 07.08.2021 when she had gone to her parental house, she had received a call from her mother-in-law raising a demand for clothes and jewellery. When she returned to her matrimonial house on 30.08.2021, she had taken few clothes for the family members. Except this statement, all other statements are of a general nature as well as vague without any particulars. There are other omnibus statements made in the complaint without any particulars whatsoever. It is also to be noted that for the purpose of constituting an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, cruelty as indicated in the Explanation to the said provision must be stated to be inflicted. The cruelty caused by the husband and his family members should be of such nature that it is inflicted with the intention to cause grave injury or drive the victim to commit suicide or inflict grave injury to herself. Such allegations are absent in the present case. We do not find that on a complete reading of the complaint, a prima facie case for proceeding under Section 498-A of the Penal Code has been made out against the appellants.
11. As regards the offence punishable under Sections 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code is concerned, it is seen that the allegations in this regard have been made only against the complainant’s husband and not against the present appellants. The entire tenor of the complaint in that regard seeks to implicate the complainant’s husband and all incidents stated therein relate to him. There is no allegation whatsoever in that context against the appellants that would require them to face trial on that count. The proceedings insofar as the present appellants are concerned, thus, deserve to be quashed in their entirety. In our view, the High Court failed to notice this aspect of the matter while declining to quash the proceedings against the appellants.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we are satisfied that on the touchstone of the law laid down in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others2, a case has been made out by the appellants for quashing of the criminal proceedings lodged against them under Sections 498-A, 377 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Continuation of these proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law and, hence, the appellants are entitled to relief.

Sanjay D Jain and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 26 Sep 2025

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Raj Kamal Yadav and Anr Vs Manju Yadav and Other on 7 Aug 2025

Posted on September 14, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 15,

15. First and foremost, it may be noted that the allegation of “arm twisting” the respondent by the petitioners is a fine piece of irony. In fact, if anyone is twisting arms here, it is the respondent herself. Of course, not in the literal sense she claims, but in the far more creative, metaphorical sense of using the criminal process as her personal pressure lever. The oblique motive is hardly a guess i.e. it is either to extract what she calls “maintenance,” which her husband has not paid, or to drag the petitioners all the way from Bijnor to Delhi, making them undergo the harassment and humiliation, until her husband succumbs to her demands on the dotted lines. The reasons are not far to seek as they are lying in plain sight. Let us examine how.

From Para 17,

17. The accused no.1 to 5 named in the above police complaint are Harish Yadav, Mangal Singh Yadav, Moorti Devi, Kusum Lata and Chander Pal. None of the petitioners is named therein. A bare perusal of the above makes it abundantly clear that there is not even a whisper of any role attributed to the petitioners, nor any suggestion that they were present at the scene, much less that they caused injury or instigated those who allegedly did during the incident of 18.12.2012. On this ground alone, the belated attempt to drag the petitioners into the proceedings through a subsequent complaint under Section 200 CrPC qua the same incident of 18.12.2012 reeks of pure afterthought on the part of the respondent.

From Para 20,

20. Significantly, it is not even the respondent’s case that her parents and sister were present during the alleged incident. Surprisingly, their depositions have not been placed on record. It is obvious that their evidence, therefore, is nothing but hearsay, dressed up as testimony. It may be reasonably presumed that far from being independent, they merely echoed the complainant’s version, word for word, as dictated and their testimony has minimal probative value.

From Para 28,

28. Before parting, I cannot but note the rather desperate attempt of the respondent’s leaned counsel to dissuade this Court from exercising jurisdiction, on the specious plea of statutory bar. The argument, though dressed in attractive garb, doe not withstand scrutiny. It reminds one of the age-old courtroom maxim: “if you have the facts, hammer the facts; if you have the law, hammer the law; if you have neither, hammer the desk”. Unfortunately for the respondent, in this case, facts do not support her, law does not sustain her case and desk-thumping cannot rescue her. On all three counts, the respondent fails.

Raj Kamal Yadav and Anr Vs Manju Yadav and Other on 7 Aug 2025

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024

Posted on May 13, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full Bench of Apex Court held that, FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time so this is a fit case warranting exercise of powers conferred upon this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to quash the proceedings of the criminal case.

From Para 14,

14. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR would reveal that the same was lodged by complainant-Barkat Ali on 29th June, 2019 with the allegation that the offences alleged were committed by the appellant and co-accused some time prior to 20th May, 2019. Thus, the complainant was not even sure of the date on which the alleged offences were committed. No reason whatsoever has been given in the FIR for huge delay of more than 39 days in approaching the police. The Investigating Officer prepared a site plan during the course of investigation which has been made a part of the record. A perusal of the said site plan would reveal that so far as the plot of Purnima Begum, wife of Barkat Ali is concerned, it is fully encumbered by a boundary wall and no damage is shown to this structure. The site plan indicates that there is some damage to the under-construction house of Sushma Kashyap. In the FIR, the damage suffered by the complainant was quantified at Rs. 6 lakhs whereas the damage suffered by Smt. Sushma Kashyap was quantified as Rs. 4 lakhs owing to the demolition of her under construction house. However, admittedly, Smt. Sushma did not lodge any complaint to the police.

From Paras 16 and 17,

16. Neither Sushma Kashyap nor her husband-Rajkumar Kashyap lodged any complaint regarding the so-called criminal activity committed by the appellant and the co-accused on their land. The site plan further indicates that the plot of the co-accused Saurabh Pratap Singh Thakur is immediately adjoining the plots of complainant-Barkat Ali and Sushma Kashyap. It is thus, apparent that there is an imminent possibility of animus between the complainant and the accused persons on this count. The FIR which was lodged after 39 days of the incident, does not indicate the date or time, when the accused trespassed into the house of the complainant and caused damage to his property and committed the other offences for which the FIR came to be registered. Therefore, we are of the view that the impugned FIR seems to be nothing but a tool to wreak vengeance against the appellant herein.
17. In this background, we feel that it is a fit case warranting exercise of powers conferred upon this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India so as to quash the proceedings of the criminal case.

Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

Posted on September 4, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) held that the husband may initiate perjury proceedings against the knife, if he desires so.

From Para 7,

A perusal at the complaint would indicate that the complainant laid emphasis upon infections of the husband on his genital areas which resembled as STD. Therefore, the husband is guilty of mental harassment dishonestly concealing his mental condition and breaching the trust of the wife. Minute details of certain allegations are made which are found in the complaint. The crux of the complaint was STD on him, making her leave her job after marriage and therefore, she would be dependent upon him. There is not a single sentence about the petitioner demanding dowry and indulging in cruelty for the purpose of demand of dowry. All the harassments that the complainant narrates are minor skirmishes between the husband and the wife.
A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet would also not indicate any demand of dowry or cruelty on the part of the husband. Prior to filing of the charge sheet by the Police, statements were recorded of the family members of the complainant.
The mother herself in her statement speaks that at the time of discussions about the marriage, the parents of the petitioner and the petitioner had clearly indicated that they do not want any dowry and they are not demanding anything. The same goes with the statements of others.
What is given to the complainant, according to the complainant’s tradition, is 614 grams of silver and 160 grams of gold, not as demand but as a tradition of her family which at best be said to be ‘Stridhana’. Such statements galore. If the statements recorded of the mother and the brother of the complainant, the complaint, the charge sheet and summary of the charge sheet are red in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is that, no demand for dowry was made and no cruelty that would become ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC would get attracted in the case at hand.
Section 498A has two circumstances, which can draw an accused into its web. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty which is likely to drive the woman to suicide or the harassment should be such that they would coerce the woman for meeting any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security, and on failure to fulfill the demand, indulge in cruelty. If the contents of the complaint, summary of the charge and the statements are considered on the bedrock of necessary ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC, the allegation of the offence would tumble down like a pack of cards, as, no where it is indicative, of the fact that there is dowry harassment and cruelty by the husband or the members of the family of the petitioner.

From Para 8,

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that every time the petitioner was accused of suffering from STD. In the aforesaid affidavit, it is clearly indicated by the wife that the petitioner is suffering from HPV infection as he has some rashes on his buttock. The petitioner gets himself tested at the Victoria Hospital and several hospitals.
The diagnostic centre at Columbus, USA observes that history and physical examination of the petitioner was done. He has no physical signs and no history of concern for HPV or any other infection in the body. Therefore, the bogey that is projected by the complainant/wife that the husband has some physical problem appears to be a white lie.

From Para 9,

9. The other bogey projected by the wife is that the petitioner has closed all channels of communications and had never shown any interest in getting the complainant to the USA, this is completely belied by the documents appended to the petition itself, as not one but four appointments were taken by the petitioner for VISA purposes of the wife. The first appointment after the petitioner left to the USA was on 13-10-2020. There are four appointments, confirmation acknowledgments of which are produced by the petitioner as annexures to the petition. They are dated 13-10-2020, 02-03-2021, 07-05-2021 and 24-05-2021;
It is on the 5th appointment, the complainant goes before the visa office and Visa is granted to the complainant, which is also appended as document to the petition. These are documents which speak for themselves. A mail communication on 05-12-2021 is quoted hereinabove. The complainant seeks confirmation regarding her travel to USA. Therefore, it is clearly a bogey projected by the complainant that the petitioner was not interested in getting her to the USA and had blocked all channels; but the documents speak otherwise. The attitude of the complainant also speaks for itself.
Therefore, it is not a case where there is an iota of ingredient against the petitioner/husband for the offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC or Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. It is misuse and abuse of criminal justice system by the complainant right from the word go.

Para 10,

10. This Court has completely considered the complaint, summary of the charge sheet, the statements recorded and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment. All this exercise is undertaken only to arrive at a conclusion as to any of the ingredients of the offences are met or otherwise. The unmistakable conclusion is that, the complainant in gross misuse and abuse of law has set the criminal law into motion. Such frivolous cases registered by the wife have taken enormous judicial time, be it before the concerned Court or before this Court, and has led to enormous civil unrest, destruction of harmony and happiness in the society. It may not be that these would be the facts in every given case. The Court is only concerned about frivolous and vexatious litigations clogging the criminal justice delivery system, where genuine cases lie in cold storage. If the facts narrated hereinabove are noticed and as observed, the complainant has, in gross misuse and abuse of the process of the law, has set the criminal law into motion. Therefore, it becomes a fit case where the husband must be given liberty to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution or initiate proceedings under Section 211 of the IPC. Liberty is thus reserved to the husband, for such action to be initiated in accordance with law, if he so desires.

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

List of Quash judgments is here and List of Perjury judgments is here.

Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023

Posted on August 20, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge at Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court highlighted the Legal terrorism aspect of 498A IPC cases.

From Paras 10 to 12,

10. Nowadays the very purpose of the insertion of Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 with the object to punish the husband or his relatives, has been defined. In most of the cases, this section is beingmisused as observed by several High Courts and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar: [(2014) 8 SCC 273] has observed that the relatives are unnecessarily being made accused under section 498-A of the I.P.C.
11. The cases are lodged under Section 498-A of the Penal Code,1860 only to settle the matrimonial dispute. some times the FIR wife lodges the FIR immediately after receipt of the summons from theFamily courts. Nowadays there is a package of 5 cases against the husband and family members in family court and the criminal courtunder I.P.C., the Hindu Marriage Act and the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
12. The Courts have experienced that on the general and omnibusallegations the family members and distant relatives are being roped in a case arising out of Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860, which wasconsidered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of UP : [(2012) 10 SCC 741]. The cases related to distant relativeswere further considered and deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana : [(2018) 14 SCC 452]

Finally from Para 17,

17. At present, the husband and wife both have settled in Australia. The parents of the husband are being harassed by way of the criminal case in India. Applicant No.1 Rajan Mathur is aged about 67 years and his wife is also a senior citizen. General allegations have been levelled against ‘Jethani’ hence she has unnecessarily been dragged in the FIR. As per the contents of the FIR, the husband of respondent No.2 was not even in India at the time of so-called omission of crime. Respondent No.2 has given the Power of Attorney to her father to contest the case against these applicants. This is now a case of reverse cruelty upon them. There is no specific allegation that when her husband left India for Australia there was any demand for dowry, etc. Now a day it is very common for the husband and wife to reside or do jobs outside of India and their parents are made to suffer in India by way of criminal or matrimonial litigation.

Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

The Index of Quash judgement is here.

Dr. Rini Johar and Anr Vs State of MP and Ors on 03 Jun 2016

Posted on April 26, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court granted compensation to victims of police harassment, while quashing the criminal proceedings.

From Para 27,

27. In the case at hand, there has been violation of Article 21 and the petitioners were compelled to face humiliation. They have been treated with an attitude of insensibility. Not only there are violation of guidelines issued in the case of D.K. Basu (supra), there are also flagrant violation of mandate of law enshrined under Section 41 and Section 41-A of CrPC. The investigating officers in no circumstances can flout the law with brazen proclivity. In such a situation, the public law remedy which has been postulated in Nilawati Behra (supra), Sube Singh v. State of Haryana9, Hardeep Singh v. State of M.P.10, comes into play. The constitutional courts taking note of suffering and humiliation are entitled to grant compensation. That has been regarded as a redeeming feature. In the case at hand, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, we think it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) towards compensation to each of the petitioners to be paid by the State of M.P. within three months hence. It will be open to the State to proceed against the erring officials, if so advised.

Dr. Rini Johar and Anr Vs State of MP and Ors on 03 Jun 2016

Citations : [2016 AIOL 3407], [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 594], [2016 SCC 11 703], [2017 SCC CRI 1 364], [2016 AIR SC 2679], [2016 AIC 163 98], [2016 CRI LJ 3156], [2016 GUJ LH 2 607], [2016 KLJ 3 613], [2016 KLT 3 502]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/103942103/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b545e561097e45a4e6b3

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019

Posted on March 9, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice B. Siva Sankar Rao trashed the falsely-laid proceedings of Dowry and 498A IPC against the family members as there were no specific allegations made up on them and no supporting evidence collected by the Police.

6. There is no record even shown from the police charge sheet by collecting from father of de facto complainant as to any so called additional amount of Rs.4,30,000/- given out of his retirement benefits or 15 tulas of gold. It is crucial if at all to believe as to what were the retirement benefits he received and when from his account he parted with. There is no date or time even mentioned either in the report or from the police investigation to believe, leave about the fact that the so-called marriage performed, from the police investigation out of love affair between A-1 and de facto complainant against the will of the parents of the de facto complainant and the parents of A-1, who are A-2 & A-3 from the beginning agreed for the love marriage with no objection. Once such is the case, even the stray allegation of the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 used to abuse her as not of their caste or religion and if they marry another girl, they could get more dowry itself is unbelievable, for the very marriage is love marriage. Even to say that there was any instigation to A-1 by A-2 to A-4 for additional dowry when it is a love marriage and no dowry shown paid originally and as discussed supra of no any payment of dowry by father of de facto complainant after his retirement from his benefits alleged, the question of any payment of additional dowry is unbelievable. It clearly shows the petitioners/A-2 to A-4 are roped without any basis for reasons better known by the de facto complainant and the police investigation in this regard is also perfunctory and baseless and the legal position is very clear that unless from the specific allegations in the complaint against the other relatives of the husband, no cognizance can be taken against the family members, particularly from the tendency of making baseless allegations in roping them and even a stray sentence as suffered harassment in the hands of in-laws, etc., is not sufficient to sustain any such accusation to rope the other family members of the husband of the de facto complainant, so-called victim.

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019

MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008

Posted on February 25, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court held that Counterblast cases/proceedings must be quash as per Category 7 of Bhajan Lal judgment here. It held as follows in Para 10.

10. The case at hand squarely falls within the parameters indicated in category (7) of Bhajan Lal’s case (supra). The factual scenario as noted above clearly shows that the proceedings were initiated as a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by the appellants. Continuance of such proceedings will be nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Proceedings are accordingly quashed.

MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008

Citations : [2009 JCC 1 260], [2009 LW CRL 1 284], [2008 SCALE 15 60], [2008 SCALE 14 1], [2008 SCC 16 763], [2009 BC 1 193], [2009 SLT 1 576], [2009 OCR 42 139], [2008 AIOL 1268], [2009 CRIMES SC 1 144], [2008 JT 12 661], [2008 SCR 16 7], [2008 SUPREME 8 559], [2010 SCC CRI 4 425], [2009 ECRN SC 1 422], [2009 AIC SC 73 198]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/312043/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae6de4b0149711413d41

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 482 – Criminal Proceeding Quashed

Deep Dey Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 6 Mar 2026

Calcutta High Court: Stamp Paper Marriage Has No Legal Validity; Bigamy Case Quashed

Decision of the Court

Abuzar Ahmed and Ors Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 8 Jan 2026

Para 8

Para 8 (continued)

Para 9

Para 12

Para 26

Sanjay D Jain and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 26 Sep 2025

Raj Kamal Yadav and Anr Vs Manju Yadav and Other on 7 Aug 2025

Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024

Mr xxxx Bhat Vs State of Karnataka and Ms xxxx Rao on 28 Jun 2024

Rajan and Anr Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 17 Aug 2023

Dr. Rini Johar and Anr Vs State of MP and Ors on 03 Jun 2016

Anil Kumar and 2 Ors Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 3 Apr 2019

MS Eicher Tractors Ltd and Ors Vs Harihar Singh and Anr on 7 Nov 2008