The appellant challenges a High Court order from April 25, 2023, which overturned a lower court decision from January 11, 2021. The lower court had dismissed summoning orders against the respondents for alleged offenses under Section 420, 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case revolves around the appellant’s marriage to respondent no.1 on April 28, 2018, which was later found to be invalid due to respondent no.1’s existing marriage. The appellant initially filed for annulment and later lodged a complaint leading to the issuance of summoning orders against the respondents.
The accused, respondent nos. 1 to 3, challenged the magistrate’s order through a Revision Petition before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri. The Sessions Court partially granted their petition, overturning the magistrate’s order regarding certain offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The appellant then appealed this decision to the High Court, which upheld the Sessions Court’s ruling. Now, the appellant brings the matter before this Court.
According to the appellant’s counsel, the appellant and respondent no. 1 met through a matrimonial site and had meetings in Visakhapatnam in March 2018, attended by respondent nos. 2 and 3. Respondent no. 1 had disclosed her previous marriage on the site. However, she allegedly misrepresented her divorce status, showing a dubious document on her phone during their meetings. They married in April 2018, but later, respondent no. 1 admitted to still being married during a doctor’s visit in June 2018. This revelation, along with alleged financial deceit, led to the appellant’s distress.
The appellant, shocked by the situation, initially filed a complaint with the police on July 8, 2018, which yielded no action. Subsequently, on July 20, 2018, the appellant lodged a criminal complaint before the Magistrate. Upon learning of the appellant’s complaint, respondent no. 1 swiftly approached the Family Court, Panvel on July 25, 2018, where her first husband had already filed for divorce six months prior. She applied for a mutual consent divorce, which was granted the same day.In the appellant’s complaint, both documentary and oral evidence were presented, establishing a prima facie case. Consequently, the Magistrate issued summoning orders against the respondents to stand trial for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code. The respondents appealed this decision through a Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge. However, the Sessions Judge, without valid reason, partially overturned the summoning orders. The appellant challenged this decision in the High Court, arguing that a prima facie case existed, indicating that the respondents had dishonestly induced him into marriage through deceitful means.
The respondents’ counsel argued that no offense under Section 420 of the IPC can be established as facts were disclosed to the appellant before the marriage and even the High Court and Session Court had justified their claims.
After reviewing the records and hearing both counsels, it’s evident that the appellant and respondent no. 1 met through a matrimonial site. The appellant was divorced, while respondent no. 1 indicated her divorce was in progress. During their meetings in Visakhapatnam, respondent no. 1 claimed to have been previously married in Mumbai, showing an unclear photocopy of a divorce decree, which the appellant believed to be genuine. They consented to marriage on March 11, 2018, with the wedding set for April 28, 2018. The appellant financed the wedding expenses and even assisted with travel arrangements for the respondents.
However, on June 16, 2018, when respondent no. 1 was found to be pregnant, she revealed she was still married to her previous husband, shocking the appellant. This revelation led to the appellant feeling deceived, especially since respondent no. 1 had expressed a desire to abort the pregnancy. Additionally, when the appellant threatened legal action, he was allegedly threatened with false matrimonial offense cases by the respondents.
The appellant filed written complaints to the Superintendent of Police of Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh, on July 7, 2018, and to the Station In-Charge, Physical Shivpuri, on July 8, 2018, but no action was taken. Subsequently, the complaint was filed in court before the Magistrate on July 20, 2018. After recording preliminary evidence, the Trial Court summoned respondent no. 1 to face trial under Sections 494 and 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC, and respondent nos. 2 and 3 to face trial under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC.
The respondents challenged this order before the Additional Sessions Judge, who held that no offense punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC, was established since respondent no. 1 had disclosed her previous marriage to the appellant. However, the Sessions Judge failed to consider subsequent events, such as informing the appellant about the alleged divorce decree and showing him a forged copy on a mobile phone. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition challenging this decision without providing reasons.
Upon review, it is concluded that the approach taken by the Sessions Court and the High Court in setting aside the summoning order against the respondents under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC is legally unsustainable. Based on the facts pleaded in the complaint and the evidence presented by the appellant, a prima facie case was established for the issuing process against the respondents. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Sessions Court are set aside, restoring the decision of the Magistrate. It is clarified that this decision does not constitute a final opinion on the merits of the case, and the Trial Court will decide based on the evidence presented by both parties.
Case Title: ANIRUDDHA KHANWALKAR vs SHARMILA DAS & OTHERS, S.L.P.(CRL.) No.10746 of 2023
Written by: Ayesha Hussain, College name : Surendranath Law College, 4th year B.A.LL.B(HONS), Intern under Legal Vidhiya
REFERENCES
https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?%0D%0AcaseId=613102459500
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature
0 Comments