Inherent quashing power cannot assess disputed facts; bigamy complaint survives against principal accused, but not vague peripheral allegations.

At the Section 482 CrPC stage, a court may quash criminal proceedings only if the complaint fails to disclose an offence or continuation would amount to abuse of process; it cannot test disputed facts on unproved materials. Applying that principle, the complaint alleging bigamy under Section 494 IPC against the principal accused could not be quashed, because cognizance had been taken on sworn statements and supporting witnesses. However, the allegations against the other accused were general and unsupported by specific material showing knowing facilitation, so proceedings against them were unsustainable and stood excluded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint and the ensuing proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction on the basis of disputed materials not legally proved; (ii) whether the proceedings could be sustained against all accused or only against the principal accused alleged to have contracted the second marriage.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the complaint and the ensuing proceedings under its inherent jurisdiction on the basis of disputed materials not legally proved.

Analysis: The complaint disclosed the commission of an offence under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the magistrate had taken cognizance on the basis of the sworn statement of the complainant and supporting witnesses. At the stage of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court was required to see whether the allegations, taken at face value, constituted an offence or whether continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process. It was not open to the High Court to test the truth of the allegations by relying on materials whose genuineness itself was disputed and which required proof.

Conclusion: The quashing of the complaint against the principal accused was not justified; the proceedings had to continue against them.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings could be sustained against all accused or only against the principal accused alleged to have contracted the second marriage.

Analysis: The allegations against the persons other than the spouses were general and vague. No sufficient material showed that they had knowingly facilitated the alleged second marriage or that their presence or conduct attracted criminal liability under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In the absence of specific and supporting averments, continuation of proceedings against them would amount to unnecessary and vexatious roping in of parties.

Conclusion: The proceedings were liable to continue only against the principal accused and were not sustainable against the remaining accused.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded in part. The order quashing the complaint was set aside to the extent it affected the principal accused, and the complaint was restored for trial against them alone, while the proceedings against the remaining accused stood excluded.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent power to quash criminal proceedings can be exercised only where the complaint does not disclose an offence or continuation of the case would clearly be an abuse of process; disputed questions of fact requiring proof cannot be ined at that stage, and vague allegations without specific supporting material are insufficient to continue proceedings against peripheral accused.

---