Appellant against quashing summoning order of ASJ
2. The complainant is before this Court challenging the order dated 25.04.20231 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior vide which the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri quashing the summoning order dated 12.03.20193 passed by the Trial Court was set aside as far as Section 420, IPC is concerned against the respondent no.1/Sharmila Das and Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC against the respondent no.2/Usharani Das and respondent no.3/Sangita.
Appellant came to know about the previous marriage of his wife
3. Briefly the facts as available on record are that the marriage of the appellant was solemnized with the respondent no.1 on 28.04.2018 in the presence of the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Having come to know that on the date, the respondent no.1 had solemnized marriage with the appellant, she was already married and had not obtained divorce from her first husband, the appellant filed a petition under Section 11 of the 1955 Act before Principal Judge, Family Court, Shivpuri (M.P.) seeking annulment of marriage between the appellant and the respondent no.1.
Appellant filed a complaint and upon preliminary evidence Magistrate issue process against the wife
4. Subsequently, the appellant preferred a complaint against the respondent nos.1, 2, and 3 in which the Magistrate vide order dated 12.03.2019, after recording preliminary evidence and being satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, directed issuance of process against the respondent no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 494 and 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC, and against the respondent nos. 2 & 3 for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC.
On revision petition filed by the wife the sessions court has set aside sections 420 & 120B IPC
5. The aforesaid order was impugned by the accused persons/respondent nos. 1 to 3 by filing Revision Petition before the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri which was partly allowed by the Sessions Court. The impugned order dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Magistrate was set aside to the extent of taking cognizance of the offence punishable under section 420 of IPC against the respondent no.1 and for the offence punishable under section 420 read with section 120-B of IPC against the respondent nos.2 and 3.
Against the order of the sessions court order appellant challenged the same before High court and the same was dismissed
6. The appellant challenged the order of Sessions Court before the High Court. The same was upheld. It is against the aforesaid two orders, the appellant is before this Court.
Accused shown a fake photocopy of divorce
10. The appellant and the respondent no.1 came in contact through a matrimonial site. The appellant was already divorced whereas the respondent no.1 had uploaded her status as “process of divorce is under consideration.” After initial conversation, the appellant along with his family members were invited to visit Visakhapatnam, where they had interaction with the respondents. At the time of the meeting the appellant was told that the respondent no.1 was earlier married at Mumbai and the divorce had already taken place. On being asked about the copy of the decree of divorce it was stated that the same is pending for signature of the Judge concerned and will be provided in due course. The respondents had shown to the appellants an unclear photocopy of the decree of divorce which was believed to be true. On 11.03.2018, the appellant gave his consent for the marriage. Date was fixed as 28.04.2018. The respondents pointed out that their financial condition was not good to come to Gwalior for the marriage along with their other relatives. As a result, the appellant booked tickets for the respondents and their relatives from Visakhapatnam to Gwalior and vice-versa, and also gave ₹ 2 lakhs cash to the respondents as expenditure for marriage.
Accused became pregnant but she revealed now to the appellant that the divorce decree was fake
11. On 16.06.2018, on account of some medical complication the appellant as well as the respondent no.1 rushed to the clinic of a lady doctor in Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh), where couple resided after their marriage. The doctor disclosed that the respondent no.1 was pregnant. The joy of the appellant knew no bounds whereas the respondent no.1 was very sad. The message was even conveyed to the family members of the appellant as well as the respondent no.1. The respondent nos.2 and 3 were not happy. The appellant was surprised with the reaction. Later, when the reason was asked by the appellant from respondent no.1, he was told that she is yet to get divorce from her previous husband. It was a shock of life for the appellant. It was nothing else but cheating by showing a fake decree of divorce. It was for this reason only that the respondent no.1 wanted to get the pregnancy aborted. The appellant felt cheated. When he told that he would take action against the respondents, he was threatened with criminal cases of various matrimonial offences, which he claimed to have been filed.
Setting aside the summoning order under sections 420 and 120B IPC is not legally sustainable
14. Considering the material on record, in our opinion the approach of the Learned Sessions Court and the High Court in setting aside the summoning order against the accused persons i.e. respondent nos.1,2 and 3 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC is not legally sustainable.
Appeal allowed by setting aside the orders of the High Court and sessions court
15. For the reasons mentioned above from the facts as pleaded in complaint and the evidence led by the appellant, prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC, for which they were summoned.
Party
ANIRUDDHA KHANWALKAR … Appellant (s) VERSUS SHARMILA DAS & OTHERS … Respondent(s) – 2024 INSC 342 – April 26, 2024 – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(CRL.) No.10746 of 2023).
