HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRMC No.74/2019 Reserved on: 05.08.2025 Pronounced on: 07.08.2025 Pawan Kumar and ors. ….Petitioners Through :- Mr. Parvinder Singh, Adv. V/s Nisha Kumari ….Respondents Through :- Ms. Deepali Arora, Adv. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court, under Section 561-A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 [“Cr.P.C.”] for quashment of a criminal complaint titled, „Nisha Kumari v. Pawan Kumar and others‟, pending in the Court of learned Munsiff Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kalakote, Rajouri [“the trial Court”] under Section 494 RPC and the consequent cognizance order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the trial Court, primarily, on the ground that none of the ingredients contained in Section 494 RPC are made out from the complaint and the preliminary statements recorded in support thereof. 2. As factual narration would unfurl, the respondent preferred a complaint in the trial Court against the petitioners for offences under Section 494 RPC, inter alia, alleging that she had come to know that petitioner-accused No. 1 has Sr. No. 2 solemnized second marriage with one Palvi Devi, during the subsistence of his first marriage with her. 3. Petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned compliant and the cognizance order, inter alia on the grounds that allegations are motivated and none of the ingredients of Section 494 RPC are coming forth from a bare perusal of the complaint and preliminary statements of the complainant and witnesses recorded by the trial court before taking cognizance of the matter. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the file. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Sandupal Dutta and ors. v. Cdr. Urmilla Bhat; 2017 Legal Eagle 155 to reiterate the grounds urged in the memo of petition and learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Manmeet Kour v. Harneet Kour and ors. [CRMC No. 201/2017 dated 01.02.2019] to contend that the impugned complaint prima facie constitutes the commission of cognizable offence against the petitioners. 6. At the foremost, it appears that it was not brought into the notice of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in both Sandupal Dutta (supra) and Manmeet Kour (supra) that offence under Section 494 RPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and it is not within the competence of the Magistrate to entertain a complaint and take cognizance of the aforesaid offence. 7. This Court is vested with the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 561-A of the erstwhile J&K Cr.P.C. and Section 482 of Central Cr.P.C.) to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. It is trite that where allegations made in the FIR or the complaint, as the case may be, taken in entirety at their face value, prima facie do not constitute any offence or disclose the commission of a cognizable offence or the allegations are so absurd 3 and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or where criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide to wreck vengeance, this Court, in exercise of extraordinary power under Article 226 of the constitution of India or inherent jurisdiction is justified to quash the criminal proceedings if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court and that the ends of justice would require that the proceedings are to be quashed. The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is saved to achieve the salutary purpose that criminal law cannot be used as an instrument of oppression and a criminal persecution cannot be allowed to continue to feed fat the grudge. 8. If the present case is approached with the aforesaid principle of law, the only allegation of the respondent against the petitioners is that she came to know that petitioner No. 1 had solemnized marriage with one Palvi Devi a resident of Kalakote, during the subsistence of his marriage with her. However, the complainant/respondent has not provided the specific details, regarding the alleged solemnization of second marriage of petitioner No. 1. Complainant has neither specified the date on which nor the place where second marriage came to be solemnized by petitioner No. 1. 9. I am fortified by an observation of this Court in Sandupal Dutta (supra) that in a complaint regarding solemnization of second marriage by an accused, during the subsistence of his first marriage, prosecution has to state particulars as to date, time and place of the alleged occurrence. Relevant excerpt of the judgment reads as: “13. Bare perusal of these relevant paragraphs of complainant, it is evident that no specific date, time and place as to where and when second marriage was performed between petitioners 1 and 2 herein, have been mentioned. For standing a trial in criminal case, prosecution has to state particulars as to time, place of alleged 4 offence, because in terms of Section 222 Cr.P.C., accused has to stand for charge; this Section says that charge shall contain particulars as to the time and place of alleged offence.” 10. Be that as it may, as already stated, offence under Section 494 RPC, as per Schedule-II of Cr.P.C., is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, impugned complaint entertained by the trial court as also the impugned order of cognizance passed by the trial court are without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid, present petition is allowed. As a result, the impugned complaint and the order of cognizance dated 16.08.2018 passed by trial court are quashed. 12. Disposed of along with connected CrlM(s). Interim direction, if any, shall stand vacated. (RAJESH SEKHRI) JUDGE JAMMU 07.08.2025 Paramjeet Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes