Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohd. Arif Ahmad Jahagir Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22473
1 MCRC-29637-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 29637 of 2024
MOHD. ARIF AHMAD JAHAGIR KHAN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare - Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Harjas Singh Chhabra -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Aatmaram Bain - Deputy Government Advocate for the State.
Shri Naveen Vaswani - Advocate for the complainant through video conferencing.
Reserved on : 12.02.2026
Pronounced on : 18.03.2026
ORDER
By way of the present petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973), the petitioner seeks quashment of the order dated
16.05.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned XVIII Additional Sessions
Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.) in Criminal Revision No.110/2024. The petitioner has
also assailed the order framing charges dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P/2)
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in RCT
No.4466/2022 (State vs. Mohd. Arif Khan ), whereby charges have been
framed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 498-
A, 494, 342, 323 and 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code .
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
6:52:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22473
2 MCRC-29637-2024
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that complainant-
Nujahat Firdous Khanam, who is the first wife of the petitioner, lodged a
report stating that her marriage with the petitioner was solemnized on
27.12.2002. It has been alleged that since she could not bear a child, the
petitioner used to assault and defame her. It was further alleged that on
16.06.2022, at about 10-11 PM, the petitioner threatened her and stated that
he would kill her by administering poison and also instigated her to commit
suicide. The complainant further alleged that the petitioner had solemnized a
second marriage with one Heena Kausar on 29.05.2022 and asked her to give
him “Khula”, i.e. “divorce” by mutual consent. On the basis of the written
report, Crime No.49/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
494, 342, 323 and 506 Part-II of IPC was registered against the petitioner at
Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur and investigation was set into motion. After
completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no case is made
out against the petitioner. He has been falsely implicated. The allegations
made are omnibus in nature and are ipse dixit in nature. It is argued that the
marriage of petitioner with the complainant was solemnized on 27.12.2002;
however, for almost 20 years since then; there was no complaint by the
complainant against the petitioner. It is only when the petitioner solemnized
second marriage, the complainant came up with a cooked story that she is
being harassed for the past 20 years and petitioner inflicted cruelty upon her.
The FIR stated only one occurrence and that the whole allegations if read on
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
6:52:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22473
3 MCRC-29637-2024
its face value, do not disclose any of the ingredients as mentioned in Section
498-A of IPC. It is further submitted that the question of implicating the
petitioner under Section 494 of IPC does not arise as the petitioner is covered
by Muslim Personal Law and as per the Personal Law, a Mohammedan may
have as many as four wives at the same time, but not more. Thus, the
question of implicating the petitioner under Section 494 of the IPC does not
arise. Reliance is place on judgment in the case of Venu Gopal Vs. Union of
India (2015) SCC online Kerala 798 in which, it has been held that the
application of Section 494 of IPC would be applicable when a Muslim man
marries a fifth time, it is then he can be prosecuted under Section 494 of IPC.
So far as Section 323 of IPC is concerned, there is no visible injury opined in
the MLC report; except for the bald statement that the petitioner held her
hand and hit her, there is no material on record to ascertain the commission
of the said offence. So far as offence Section 342 of IPC is concerned, the
same is not made out as none of the ingredients of the said offences are
attracted. The complaint is totally silent on this aspect.
4. It is further contended that the petitioner pronounced ‘Divorce’ for
the first time upon the complainant/respondent No.2 on 04.05.2022, and
thereafter, on 29.05.2022, contracted a second marriage in accordance with
Muslim rites and personal law. It is submitted that the complaint lodged by
the complainant/respondent No.2 before the police authorities, alleging an
incident dated 16.06.2022, on the basis of which FIR bearing Crime
No.49/2022 came to be registered, is without any basis and has been filed as
a counterblast. It is further contended that on 02.07.2022, the petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
6:52:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22473
4 MCRC-29637-2024
pronounced ‘Divorce’ for the second time upon the complainant/respondent
No.2, and on that basis, the Family Court, vide judgment and decree dated
14.11.2025, annulled the marriage between the petitioner and the
complainant/respondent No.2. It is further submitted that prima facie, no
cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. It is, therefore, prayed
that the aforesaid impugned orders be set aside and the petitioner be
discharged from the said offences.
5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Manju Ram Kalita vs. State of Assam, (2009) 13 SCC 330; Pinakin
Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat, (2013) 10 SCC 48; Mahalakshmi and
Others vs. State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1622; and Abhishek
Saxena vs. State of U.P., [Criminal Appeal No.3628 of 2023 (arising out of
SLP (Crl.) No. 1431 of 2020)].
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as learned
counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for
the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for Respondent
No.2/complainant that under Muslim Personal Law, unless a declaration is
submitted, the provisions of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application
Act, 1937 would not apply to the petitioner. It is contended that in the
absence of such declaration, the petitioner is not entitled to have four wives
at the same time, and therefore, the offence punishable under Section 494 of
Indian Penal Code is made out against him. Learned counsel further submits
that the petitioner has solemnized a second marriage with Smt. Heena Kausar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
6:52:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22473
5 MCRC-29637-2024
on 29.05.2022 during the subsistence of his first marriage with Respondent
No.2/complainant and had been pressurizing the complainant to give
“Khula”. The statements of the complainant and other witnesses recorded
during the investigation, along with the material collected by the
prosecution, prima facie disclose the commission of offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 494, 342, 323 and 506 Part-II of Indian Penal Code. It
is further contended that learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur,
upon due consideration of the material available on record, has rightly
framed the charges against the petitioner and learned XVIII Additional
Sessions Judge, Jabalpur has also committed no illegality in affirming the
said order in Criminal Revision No.110/2024. The grounds raised by the
petitioner involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in
a petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973),
as the same can only be determined after the parties adduce evidence during
the course of trial.
7. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has carefully
examined the complaint, the material placed on record and the law governing
the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973
(Section 528 of BNSS, 2023).
8. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
is required to be exercised sparingly and with great circumspection, only in
cases where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, do not disclose
the commission of any offence, or where continuation of the proceedings
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
6:52:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22473
6 MCRC-29637-2024
would amount to abuse of the process of law. This principle has been
consistently reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar
Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4.
9 . On perusal of the record, it is seen that the marriage between the
petitioner and Respondent No.2/complaiant was solemnized on 27.12.2002
in accordance with Muslim customs. Thereafter, on 04.05.2022, the
petitioner pronounced ‘divorce’ for the first time. Subsequently, on
29.05.2022, the petitioner contracted a second marriage in accordance with
Muslim rites and rituals. It is further revealed from the record that on
17.06.2022, Respondent No.2/complainant lodged a complaint with the
police, which was registered as Crime No.49/2022 at Police Station Mahila
Thana, Jabalpur and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet came
to be filed. It is also borne out from the record that on 02.07.2022, the
petitioner pronounced ‘divorce’ for the second time to Respondent No.2. On
the basis of the ‘divorce’ pronounced by the petitioner in accordance with
Muslim personal law, the Family Court, Jabalpur, vide judgment dated
14.11.2025 passed in RCSA No.120/2022, annulled the marriage between
the petitioner and Respondent No.2 on the basis of the “Talaq” pronounced
on 02.07.2022.
10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 494 of IPC is
concerned, the said provision criminalizes bigamy where a person, having a
spouse living, contracts another marriage during the subsistence of the first
marriage and such subsequent marriage is void on that account. In other
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
6:52:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22473
7 MCRC-29637-2024
words, for the offence under Section 494 IPC to be attracted, it is essential
that the second marriage must be void by reason of the subsistence of the
earlier marriage. However, the applicability of Section 494 IPC is subject to
the personal law governing the parties. Under Muslim Personal Law, a
Muslim male is permitted to have more than one wife at a time, subject to the
conditions recognized by the personal law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sarla Mudgal vs. Union of India, 1995 AIR 1531 has taken note of the
position that Muslim Personal Law recognizes polygamy, and in Khursheed
Ahmad Khan vs. State of U.P..2015, (8) SCC 439, the Apex Court again
observed that Muslim law permits plurality of marriages though it may be
regulated by law in certain contexts. The reliance placed on Surajmani Stella
Kujur vs. Durga Charan Hansdah, 2001 AIR SCW 711 would also not
advance the case of the complainant, as in the said case the parties were
governed by tribal customary law where the permissibility of polygamy was
not established.
11. Thus, in the present case, where the parties are governed by
Muslim Personal Law which permits a Muslim male to have more than one
wife. Thus, even if the allegations of the complainant are accepted at their
face value, the act of the petitioner in contracting a second marriage would
not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 494 of IPC and continuation of
the prosecution for the said offence would amount to an abuse of the process
of the Court. Therefore, a second marriage contracted by a Muslim male
during the lifetime of his first wife is not treated as void merely on the
ground that the first marriage is still subsisting. In view of this legal position,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
6:52:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22473
8 MCRC-29637-2024
the essential ingredient of Section 494 of IPC, namely that the subsequent
marriage must be void on account of the subsistence of the first marriage is
not fulfilled in the present case. Consequently, even if the allegations made
by the complainant are taken at their face value, the act of the petitioner in
contracting a second marriage would not constitute an offence punishable
under Section 494 of IPC. In Venugopal K (Supra) , the Kerala High Court
examined the broader issue relating to the constitutional implications of
polygamy under Muslim Personal Law and the scope of Section of 494 IPC.
Neither of the said decisions lays down that a second marriage contracted by
a Muslim male, governed by Muslim Personal Law, would ipso facto
constitute the offence of bigamy. On the contrary, the applicability of
Section 494 IPC depends upon whether the second marriage is void by
reason of the subsistence of the first marriage. In the present case, the parties
are admittedly governed by Muslim Personal Law, which recognizes the
permissibility of plurality of marriages. Therefore, the essential ingredient of
Section of 494 IPC, namely that the second marriage must be void on
account of the subsistence of the earlier marriage, is not satisfied.
Consequently, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner for the
said offence (Section 494 of the IPC) cannot be sustained in law.
12. However, so far as the other offences alleged against the
petitioner are concerned, the allegations and the material collected during
investigation prima facie disclose the commission of those offences and
therefore they are required to be examined by the trial Court in accordance
with law.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
6:52:37 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:22473
9 MCRC-29637-2024
13. With the aforesaid, this petition under Section 528 of BNSS,
2023 (Section 482 of CrPC, 1973) stands partly allowed and disposed of.
14. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined only
to the adjudication of the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., 1973
(Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) and shall not be construed as an expression on
the merits of the case. The trial Court shall independently appreciate the
evidence adduced before it and decide the matter in accordance with law.
15. Pending application(s), if any stands closed.
16. A copy of the order be transmitted to the trial court concerned.
(B. P. SHARMA)
JUDGE
@shish^
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ASHISH KUMAR
JAIN
Signing time: 3/18/2026
6:52:37 PM