(Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, to call for the records bearing in CC.No.728 of 2026 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai District and quash the same as against the petitioners and devoid of merits and thus render justice.)

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by A2 to A9 in C.C.No. 728 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, seeking to quash the final report, in which they stand charged with offences under Sections 417, 420, 495, 120-B and 506(ii) of IPC.

(A) FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The second respondent married A1 (who is not a party to this petition) on 04.09.2017 at Madurai. The marriage was arranged through a marriage broker and a mediator. The couple have two children. According to the prosecution, in early 2018, A1 obtained a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- by bank transfer and Rs.3,00,000/- in cash from the second respondent on a false pretext and handed it over to her parents, namely A2 and A3. The amount was never returned.

3. On 26.02.2025, A1 left the matrimonial home along with the children and went to her parents' house. During the compromise talks that followed, the second respondent came to know that A1 had already registered a marriage with one Karthikeyan on 08.12.2015 at the Sub-Registrar's Office, Kadalur. This was later confirmed through information obtained under the Right to Information Act.

4. The final report further alleges that A2 to A9, being the relatives of A1, knew of the earlier marriage and conspired with A1 to conceal it from the second respondent. A6 is also alleged to have threatened the second respondent through a mediator.

5. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer examined, among others, Karthikeyan (L.W.8). He stated that he and A1 had registered their marriage at Kadalur on 08.12.2015, when both of them were students, and that they had agreed to keep it a secret. He further stated that A1's family later came to know of it, and that her relatives, who are now arrayed as A2 to A9, came to his house and quarrelled with his mother. According to him, he has had no contact with A1 since then.

6. Aggrieved by the final report, the parents and relatives of A1 have filed the present petition to quash the proceedings as against them.

(B) SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE:

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contended that the offence under Section 495 of IPC falls under Chapter XX of IPC (offences relating to marriage), and that Section 198 of Cr.P.C. bars a Court from taking cognizance of such an offence except upon a complaint made by the person aggrieved. Hence, cognizance taken on a police report is without jurisdiction. He further contended that the offence under Section 495 of IPC can be committed only by the person who marries again, and the petitioners, who are the parents and relatives of A1, have not contracted any marriage. The only material against them is the statement of L.W.8, which is undated and merely names them together, without attributing any specific act to any one of them. Even assuming that the petitioners knew of the earlier marriage, mere knowledge does not amount to an agreement so as to attract Section 120-B of IPC.

8. The learned counsel further submitted that the money in question was given by the second respondent to his own wife. No representation or inducement is attributed to any of the petitioners, and the prosecution version as to the amount and the person who received it is itself inconsistent. Section 506(ii) of IPC was added only in the final report, without any allegation against most of the petitioners. According to him, the prosecution is a counter-blast arising out of a matrimonial dispute, and the petitioners, who are the parents, brother, uncle, aunt and cousins of A1, have been roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations.

9. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the second respondent and his family were deceived into the marriage, and that his money was taken through A1 for the benefit of A2 and A3. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, reported in (2025) 1 SCC 392, and A.Subash Babu Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (Crl.A.No.1428 of 2011, dated 21.07.2011).

10. The learned Senior Counsel also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Neelaveni Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police and others, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 607, and contended that where a non-cognizable offence is alleged along with a cognizable offence, the police are entitled to investigate both and file a final report.

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation revealed that the petitioners knew of A1's earlier marriage and yet arranged her marriage with the second respondent by concealing it. He relied upon the statement of L.W.8 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., in which the petitioners are specifically named. According to him, whether the petitioners shared the intention of A1 is a matter for trial, and since the final report has already been filed, the petitioners may raise their contentions at the stage of discharge. He further relied upon Section 155(4) of Cr.P.C., which empowers the police to investigate a non-cognizable offence when it is alleged along with a cognizable offence, and placed reliance on the decision of this Court in S.Ramy Vs. The State rep. by the Inspector of Police, AWPS, Thirumangalam, Chennai and another (Crl.O.P.No.27708 of 2023, dated 05.03.2024). He therefore prayed for dismissal of the petition.

12. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials on record, including the final report and the statements of the witnesses.

(C) DISCUSSION:

13. Before dealing with the bar under Section 198 of Cr.P.C., this Court proposes to examine whether the offences under Sections 417, 420, 506(ii) and 120-B of IPC are made out on the face of the allegations in the final report.

14. To constitute the offence of cheating, there must be deception of the victim, a fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the accused, and resulting harm; and the dishonest intention must exist at the very inception. To attract Section 420 of IPC, the victim must, in addition, have been induced to deliver property. In the present case, insofar as the money is concerned, the prosecution's own case is that the second respondent gave it to his own wife (A1) at her request in 2018. No representation or inducement by any of the petitioners to the second respondent is alleged, and no document evidencing the transfer has been collected. A claim for the return of money that passed between spouses during the subsistence of their marriage is, at best, civil in nature. Therefore, the offences under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC are not made out against the petitioners.

15. It is also relevant to note that the complaint was lodged only after the matrimonial relationship broke down in February 2025, about seven and a half years after the marriage. In such circumstances, the Court has to look at the overall circumstances and read between the lines.

16. As regards Section 506(ii) of IPC, it was not invoked in the FIR and was added against all the accused only at the stage of the final report. Even the final report attributes a threat only to A1 and A6. As against A6, it is alleged that he conveyed a threat through a mediator, but neither the date, the time, the words used, nor any call records are mentioned. Such vague allegations do not make out the offence of criminal intimidation. As against the other petitioners, there is no allegation of any threat at all. Hence, the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC is also not made out.

17. In the light of the above, this Court will now consider whether the charges under Sections 495 and 120-B of IPC are made out on merits.

18. Section 495 of IPC punishes a person who commits the offence under Section 494 of IPC after concealing the former marriage from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted. The offence is thus committed only by the person who marries again. None of the petitioners has contracted any marriage. They can therefore be proceeded against only if there is material to show that they abetted the offence or were parties to a criminal conspiracy to commit it.

19. Criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means. Mere relationship or association with the principal accused does not establish a conspiracy. The only material relied upon by the prosecution to show the involvement of the petitioners is the statement of L.W.8. Even if that statement is accepted in its entirety, it shows no more than that, at some point of time after December 2015 (the date is not specified), A1's relatives came to know of the relationship and quarrelled with L.W.8's mother. L.W.8 does not attribute any specific word or act to any individual petitioner. He had no contact with A1 thereafter, and can therefore say nothing about how the marriage of 2017 came to be arranged. L.W.8 further states that he married another woman in the year 2019.

20. None of the witnesses, including the mediator through whom the marriage was arranged, speaks of any representation made by any of the petitioners to the second respondent or his family that A1 was unmarried. There is no material to show any meeting of minds between the petitioners and A1 to deceive the second respondent. Knowledge, if any, of an earlier event cannot by itself be equated with an agreement to commit an offence. Therefore, even on merits, the materials collected do not disclose the ingredients of Section 495 read with Section 120-B of IPC as against the petitioners.

21. The second respondent has produced a photocopy of the marriage registration certificate. It shows that the marriage was solemnised on 08.12.2015at the Tamil Nadu Inter-Caste Married and Social Welfare Association. Whether the marriage was performed in accordance with the essential ceremonies of a Hindu marriage is not known. It is settled law that, unless the essential ceremonies of a Hindu marriage are performed, mere registration does not by itself constitute a valid marriage. In fact, L.W.8 himself married another woman in the year 2019. However, this Court refrains from expressing any view on the validity of the alleged marriage dated 08.12.2015, since that question concerns A1 and L.W.8, who are not before this Court.

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against the tendency to implicate all the members of a family in criminal cases arising out of matrimonial disputes, and has held that the mere naming of relatives, without specific allegations of their active involvement, is not sufficient to proceed against them. In the present case, the petitioners are the parents, brother, uncle, aunt and cousins of A1, some of whom reside in Theni District and one of whom resides in Canada. Apart from a bare mention of their names by L.W.8, no specific act is attributed to most of them.

23. Even assuming that Section 155(4) of Cr.P.C. applies, namely, that where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable, and that the police therefore had jurisdiction to investigate and file a final report for the offence under Section 495 of IPC, it must be noted that this offence was clubbed with the other cognizable offences. When the ingredients of those cognizable offences are not made out, and even the ingredients of Section 495 of IPC are not made out, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the final report as against the parents and relatives of A1.

24. The allegation that A6 has “criminal antecedents” and is lodged in the Central Prison, Madurai, is irrelevant to the offences charged. No material on this aspect has even been collected. It appears to have been pleaded only to prejudice the Court.

25. It is made clear that the observations made in this order are confined to the petitioners alone. The trial Court shall proceed against A1 in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any of the observations made herein. Nothing in this order shall preclude the second respondent from pursuing such other remedies as may be available to him in law.

(D) CONCLUSION:

26. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.728 of 2026 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, are quashed insofar as the petitioners/A2 to A9 are concerned. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.