Aniruddha Khanwalkar vs. Sharmila Das & Others (Supreme Court, 26 April 2024)
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a matrimonial fraud scenario:
Marriage and Misrepresentation: Aniruddha Khanwalkar married Sharmila Das on April 28, 2018. Before the marriage, Sharmila claimed that she was legally divorced from her first husband and produced a divorce decree to support her claim.
Discovery of Fraud: After the marriage, Khanwalkar discovered that Sharmila was still married to her first husband. The divorce decree shown to him was forged, meaning she had misrepresented her marital status.
Filing of Complaint: Upon realizing this, Khanwalkar filed a criminal complaint under:
Section 420 IPC – Cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property or act on false promises.
Section 120-B IPC – Criminal conspiracy to commit the above offense.
Lower Court Proceedings:
The trial court initially issued summons against Sharmila Das, her mother, and her sister, considering the prima facie evidence of fraud. However, both the Sessions Court and the High Court quashed these summonses, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to proceed with a criminal trial.
Legal Issues
The Supreme Court had to decide:
Whether there was enough preliminary evidence to establish a prima facie case of cheating and criminal conspiracy.
Whether showing a forged divorce decree to induce someone into marriage constitutes cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Whether the lower courts were justified in quashing the summonses without allowing the trial to proceed.
Supreme Court’s Findings
Prima Facie Case Exists:
The Supreme Court found that the appellant had presented sufficient preliminary evidence to show that a crime was committed. The fact that Sharmila deliberately misrepresented her marital status and used a forged divorce decree was enough to establish a prima facie case.
Forgery and Dishonest Inducement:
The Court emphasized that Sharmila, along with her mother and sister, had dishonestly induced Khanwalkar to marry her by presenting false information and forged documents. This constitutes cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Improper Quashing by Lower Courts:
The Supreme Court noted that the Sessions Court and High Court erred in quashing the summonses prematurely. At the stage of issuing summons, the court only needs to consider whether there is a prima facie case, not decide the final merits of the case.
Trial Must Proceed:
The Court restored the trial court's order, meaning the criminal trial must continue, and the accused will have the opportunity to defend themselves during the proceedings.
Significance of the Judgment
Criminal Liability for Matrimonial Fraud:
The judgment clearly establishes that misrepresenting marital status with forged documents to induce marriage can amount to cheating and criminal conspiracy.
Prima Facie Test at Summons Stage:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that courts should only examine whether there is a prima facie case while issuing summons, and cannot dismiss cases on the merits at this stage.
Protection of Victims’ Rights:
The decision protects individuals from being deceived into marriages and ensures that perpetrators of fraud can face criminal proceedings.
In short: The Supreme Court held that Sharmila Das and her family members had allegedly committed matrimonial fraud by hiding her real marital status using a forged divorce decree. The Court allowed the criminal proceedings to continue, reinforcing that such acts are punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC.
RELATED Blog
0 comments