Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nazia Siddique vs Sandeep Chaurasiya on 15 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29074
1 MCRC-27233-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE HIMANSHU JOSHI
ON THE 15th OF APRIL, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27233 of 2025
NAZIA SIDDIQUE
Versus
SANDEEP CHAURASIYA
Appearance:
Shri Rajvardhan Singh - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Anuj Shrivastava - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed by the applicant/complainant calling in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budhar in Criminal Revision No.06/2022, whereby the revisional Court set aside the order of cognizance dated 04.03.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Budhar in RCT No.342/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 494 IPC and remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration.
2. Factual matrix of the case is that the applicant alleges that she was married to the respondent on 04.07.2009 at Ujjain according to Hindu rites and customs and thereafter both cohabited as husband and wife till the year 2015. It is further alleged that during subsistence of the said marriage, the respondent solemnized a second marriage on 28.05.2015 with another woman without dissolution of the first marriage, thereby attracting the offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC.
3. On the basis of complaint, statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and the material placed on record, the learned JMFC, Budhar, vide order dated 04.03.2016, took cognizance of the offence. The respondent, after a considerable lapse of time, preferred Criminal Revision No. 06/2022 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Budhar, contending that the order of Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 17-04-2026 16:13:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29074 2 MCRC-27233-2025 cognizance was erroneous. The applicant raised a specific objection as to the maintainability of the revision on the ground of limitation, contending that the respondent had prior knowledge of the proceedings at least since 13.08.2019 in view of pleadings made by him in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The revisional Court, by the impugned order dated 16.05.2025, set aside the cognizance order on the ground that there was no documentary evidence of marriage between the applicant and respondent, and further observed absence of proof of conversion of the applicant to Hindu religion. The matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order is vitiated on account of non-consideration of the objection regarding limitation, which goes to the root of jurisdiction. It is contended that the revisional Court could not have entertained the revision after an inordinate delay of more than six years without condoning the delay upon sufficient cause being shown. It is further submitted that the order of cognizance was passed upon prima facie satisfaction based on statements and material on record, and the revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into an appreciation of evidence. It is also urged that issues relating to validity of marriage, conversion, and proof thereof are matters of trial and could not have been conclusively determined at the stage of cognizance.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that the foundational requirement of a valid first marriage is absent in the present case. It is contended that no documentary evidence has been produced to establish that the applicant was legally married to the respondent in accordance with Hindu law. It is further submitted that the applicant, being admittedly a Muslim by birth, has not placed any material to demonstrate conversion to Hindu religion, which is essential for a valid Hindu marriage. It is argued that in absence of proof of a valid marriage, the offence under Section 494 IPC is not even prima facie made out, and therefore, the revisional Court rightly interfered.
6. Heard counsels for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
7. It is not in dispute that the revision petition was filed after a substantial delay of more than six years from the date of the cognizance order. The applicant has brought on record material indicating that the respondent had knowledge of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 17-04-2026 16:13:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29074 3 MCRC-27233-2025 proceedings at least in the year 2019. Ordinarily, the revisional Court is required to consider limitation and, if necessary, condone delay upon sufficient cause being shown. However, it is equally well settled that where the order under challenge is ex facie illegal or results in miscarriage of justice, the revisional jurisdiction can be exercised to correct such illegality even if the question of limitation is not elaborately dealt with.
8. In the present case, the revisional Court has proceeded to examine the very foundation of the complaint and has found absence of basic material constituting the offence. Thus, mere non-elaboration on limitation does not ipso facto vitiate the impugned order when substantive justice has been addressed.
9. Section 494 IPC presupposes the existence of a valid and subsisting first marriage. The law is well settled that for constituting an offence of bigamy, the first marriage must be legally valid and proved in accordance with law. In the present case, the following aspects emerge from the record that no documentary proof of marriage between the applicant and respondent has been filed, the alleged marriage is stated to have been performed under Hindu rites, the applicant is admittedly from a different religion and there is no material indicating conversion to Hindu religion prior to the alleged marriage. These aspects are not merely matters of detailed proof but go to the root of the applicability of Section 494 IPC.
10. While it is true that at the stage of cognizance, only a prima facie view is to be taken, such prima facie satisfaction must still be based on foundational facts constituting the offence. The learned JMFC, while taking cognizance, did not advert to the absence of any material indicating a legally valid marriage. The revisional Court, therefore, examined whether the basic ingredients of the offence were made out and found the material to be insufficient. Importantly, the revisional Court has not terminated the proceedings finally but has remanded the matter to enable the applicant to place necessary material. Such remand cannot be said to be prejudicial to the applicant; rather it advances the cause of justice by permitting proper adjudication on complete material. The impugned order does not result in dismissal of the complaint but restores the matter to a stage where the Magistrate may reconsider the issue upon proper material. Remand in such circumstances is a recognized course where the initial order suffers from lack of foundational consideration. This Court does not find that the revisional Court has Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 17-04-2026 16:13:50 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:29074 4 MCRC-27233-2025 acted beyond its jurisdiction or committed any manifest illegality.
11. Upon a comprehensive consideration of the matter, this Court is of the view that the absence of material indicating a valid first marriage goes to the root of the offence under Section 494 IPC. The revisional Court has rightly interfered to prevent continuation of proceedings lacking foundational basis. The remand order affords an opportunity to the applicant to substantiate her case and does not cause irreparable prejudice. No such jurisdictional error, perversity or miscarriage of justice is demonstrated so as to warrant interference under Section 528 BNSS. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.
12. The applicant shall be at liberty to produce all relevant material before the learned trial Court pursuant to the remand. The learned trial Court shall reconsider the matter independently and in accordance with law, without being influenced with any observations made herein.
(HIMANSHU JOSHI) JUDGE rv Signature Not Verified Signed by: REENA HIMANSHU SHARMA Signing time: 17-04-2026 16:13:50