Enticing Married Woman For Illicit Sexual Intercourse Attracts Offence U/S 84 BNS: J&K&L High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Despite Woman Denying Abduction

The Court relied on the Himachal Pradesh High Court decision in Soyab v. State of H.P. and Ors 2026:HHC:17115 holding that judicial sanctity cannot be extended to an apparently adulterous relationship, and declined to interfere with the investigation merely because the alleged victim disowned the abduction allegation, holding that the complaint lodged by her father-in-law did not suffer from any infirmity classifiable as abuse of process.

Justice M.A. Chowdhary while dismissing a petition filed under Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of an FIR registered for abduction, observed, “…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intercourse with someone else is a recognized criminal offence under Section 84 of the BNS, akin to Section 498 of the repealed IPC. Besides, without dissolution of the earlier marriage of the Petitioner No.1, she is stated to have performed marriage with Petitioner No.2, which also constitutes an offence of bigamy under Section 82 of BNS”.

Advocate Kunal Saini appeared for the petitioners and Hakim Aman Ali, Deputy AG appeared for the respondent.

The petitioner, a woman from Baramulla, had travelled to Delhi on December 09, 2024 to pursue a computer course, where she befriended the second petitioner, a Delhi resident of a different faith. According to her account, when her family learned of the friendship, she was lured back to Kashmir for Eid, subjected to severe physical abuse including blade attacks by her uncle, and forced into marriage with Danish Khan, son of the complainant, on April 07, 2025.

It was alleged that she was subsequently raped and confined, before escaping with the help of two local friends to Srinagar Airport and flying to Delhi, where she was received by the second petitioner.

The complainant lodged the FIR alleging his daughter-in-law had been kidnapped by an unknown motorcyclist. Police investigation revealed the two local friends had been paid by the second petitioner to facilitate her transport, and a non-bailable warrant was issued against him.

During the proceedings, the petitioner's statement was recorded virtually before the Court's Registrar (Judicial), wherein she reiterated she was not abducted, stated she wished to divorce Danish Khan, and was working in Delhi to earn her livelihood.

However, the complainant placed on record a marriage certificate from Arya Samaj Mandir, Uttam Nagar, showing the petitioner had married the second petitioner on May 28, 2025, before her first marriage was dissolved, along with photographs of the ceremony, both reportedly furnished by the second petitioner's own brother.

The Court held that even accepting the petitioner's version that she was not forcibly abducted, her conduct of leaving her husband's company and subsequently marrying the second petitioner during the subsistence of her first marriage raised independent offences requiring investigation.

“…it appears that the Petitioner No.1, despite being a married woman, even if assumed, on the basis of her statement, that she was not forcibly abducted/ kidnapped, had left the company of her husband and started living in with the Petitioner No.2 in Delhi and later performed marriage with him on 28th of May, 2025, before filing of this Petition, during the subsistence of her earlier marriage with the son of the Complainant/ Respondent No.2 herein”, the Bench further noted.

The petition was dismissed, with the Investigating Agency directed to examine the petitioner at a place where she feels safe.

Cause Title: R and Another v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Others CRM (M) No. 25/2026

Appearances:

Petitioners: Kunal Saini, Advocate.

Respondents: Hakim Aman Ali, Deputy AG, R.A. Khan, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment