Enticing a married woman away for an illicit relationship is a punishable offence under Section 84 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and contracting a second marriage without dissolution of the first may amount to bigamy under Section 82 of the legislation, the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has said.
A bench of Justice MA Chowdhary made the observations while refusing to quash an FIR registered in an alleged abduction case.
The complaint disclosed cognizable offences and required a full-fledged investigation, the court noted while dismissing the petition that had called in question the FIR.
Ruksana Bano of north Kashmir’s Baramulla, and Nikhil Chokker of West Delhi had petitioned court seeking to quash the FIR registered by Police under Sections 87 and 49 of the BNS.
According to the plea, Ruksana, an adult woman, had voluntarily left Kashmir after allegedly being subjected to physical assault, threats and a forced marriage by her relatives and the family of her first husband. She escaped with the help of friends, travelled to New Delhi of her own free will and was never abducted by anyone, she claimed.
Father of Rukhsana’s first husband as complainant opposed the plea with the contention that she was legally married to his son and had been abducted from her matrimonial home with the assistance of two local persons at the instance of co-petitioner, Nikhil Chokker.
During the proceedings, the High Court through a virtual mode recorded Ruksana’s statement wherein she maintained that she had not been kidnapped and was residing in Delhi voluntarily. She also said that she apprehended danger to her life if she returned to Kashmir and intended to seek divorce from first husband. Moreover, she alleged that her marriage with him had been forced.
In its status report to the court, the police said that Ruksana had telephonically stated she had travelled to Delhi of her own choice and wished to record her statement there due to safety concerns. However, the investigating agency submitted that the probe had remained incomplete because of the interim stay granted by the High Court and sought permission to continue the investigation.
The Court also took note of documents placed on record by the complainant, including an Arya Samaj marriage certificate and photographs, indicating that Ruksana had allegedly married Nikhil Chokker in Delhi on May 28, 2025, while her earlier marriage with Baramulla resident was still subsisting.
Pointing out that the material on record disclosed issues requiring investigation, the Court said, “It is settled legal position that enticing away a married woman with intention to engage her in illicit sexual intercourse with someone else is a recognized criminal offence under Section 84 of the BNS, akin to Section 498 of the repealed IPC.”
Moreover, the Court noted that if the second marriage was contracted without dissolution of the earlier marriage, it would also constitute the offence of bigamy under Section 82 of the BNS. The Court held that the complaint could not be treated as an abuse of the legal process warranting quashing of the FIR and dismissed the petition and vacated the interim stay on investigation. Even as the court said that the investigating agency may record Ruksana’s statement at a place where she feels safe, taking note of her apprehension regarding her personal security, and proceed with the investigation in accordance with law.
About The Author
