Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Cheating and Bigamy Case — Prima Facie Case Made Out for Summoning Under Section 420 IPC. The Court held that at the preliminary stage of summoning, the Magistrate need only find a prima facie case, and the allegations of showing a forged divorce decree and inducing marriage and payment of money constitute such a case under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 537
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant husband filed a criminal complaint alleging that the respondent no.1 wife, along with her relatives (respondent nos.2 and 3), cheated him into marrying her by showing a forged divorce decree, despite her earlier marriage not being dissolved. The appellant and respondent no.1 met through a matrimonial site where her status was shown as 'process of divorce is under consideration.' During meetings, the respondents showed an unclear copy of a divorce decree on a mobile phone and claimed the original was pending signature. The marriage was solemnized on 28.04.2018, and the appellant paid ₹2 lakhs and bore marriage expenses. On 16.06.2018, it was discovered that respondent no.1 was pregnant and she admitted that she had not yet obtained divorce from her first husband. The appellant filed a police complaint and then a criminal complaint before the Magistrate. The Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence, issued summons against respondent no.1 under Sections 494 and 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, and against respondent nos.2 and 3 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC. The Sessions Court partly allowed the revision, quashing the summons under Section 420 IPC against respondent no.1 and under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC against respondent nos.2 and 3, while upholding the summons under Section 494 IPC. The High Court upheld the Sessions Court order. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that at the summoning stage, only a prima facie case is required, and the allegations and evidence disclosed such a case. The Court set aside the orders of the Sessions Court and High Court to the extent they quashed the summons under Section 420 IPC and Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC, and restored the Magistrate's summoning order in full.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure - Summoning Order - Prima Facie Case - At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the complaint and pre-summoning evidence; detailed appreciation of evidence is not required. (Paras 12.1, 13)

B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 - Cheating - Ingredients - For the offence of cheating, it must be shown that the accused dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver property or to do or omit to do something which he would not otherwise do. The complainant alleged that the respondents showed a forged divorce decree and induced him to marry and part with money. (Paras 7, 10, 11)

C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120-B - Criminal Conspiracy - Prima Facie Case - The complaint alleged that all respondents conspired to induce the appellant into marriage by showing a forged divorce decree, thereby cheating him. At the summoning stage, such allegations are sufficient to proceed. (Paras 7.6, 12)

D) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 11 - Annulment of Marriage - The appellant filed a petition under Section 11 for annulment on the ground that respondent no.1 was already married at the time of marriage with the appellant. (Para 3)

E) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B - Divorce by Mutual Consent - The respondent no.1 obtained a divorce by mutual consent on 25.07.2018, after the complaint was filed, which was not in existence on the date of marriage. (Para 7.3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court and Sessions Court erred in quashing the summoning order under Section 420 IPC and Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC at the preliminary stage, despite the existence of a prima facie case based on allegations and pre-summoning evidence.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Sessions Court and High Court to the extent they quashed the summoning order under Section 420 IPC against respondent no.1 and under Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC against respondent nos.2 and 3, and restored the Magistrate's summoning order dated 12.03.2019 in full.

Law Points

  • Prima facie case
  • summoning order
  • cheating
  • criminal conspiracy
  • Section 420 IPC
  • Section 120-B IPC
  • Section 494 IPC
  • Hindu Marriage Act 1955
  • Section 11
  • Section 13-B
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (SC) (4) 264

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(CRL.) No.10746 of 2023)

2024-04-26

Rajesh Bindal

Gopal Shankarnarayanan, Astha Sharma, Nipun Saxena, Srisatya Mohanty, Anju Thomas, Sanjeev Kaushik, Mantika Haryani, Aditi Gupta, Shreyas Awasthi, Himanshu Chakravarty, Ripul Swati Kumari, Bhanu Mishra, Muskan Surana, Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Archit Adlakha, Soumya Saxena, Aditya Raj Pandey, Yashaswi Sk Chocksey, Ankit Singh, Yashish Chandra, Vijay Rajput, Rajesh Kumar, Madhup Kumar Tiwari, Kavita Chaturwedi, Neha Rai, Mukesh Kumar

Aniruddha Khanwalkar

Sharmila Das & Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against orders quashing summoning order under Section 420 IPC and Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought restoration of the Magistrate's summoning order against the respondents for offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC.

Filing Reason

The appellant alleged that the respondents cheated him by showing a forged divorce decree and inducing him to marry respondent no.1 and part with money.

Previous Decisions

The Magistrate issued summons; Sessions Court quashed summons under Section 420 IPC and Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC; High Court upheld the Sessions Court order.

Issues

Whether a prima facie case under Section 420 IPC and Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC is made out against the respondents at the summoning stage. Whether the Sessions Court and High Court erred in appreciating the evidence at the preliminary stage.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant: The respondents dishonestly induced him by showing a forged divorce decree, leading to marriage and parting with money; a prima facie case is made out. Respondents: There was no concealment; all facts were disclosed; no offence of cheating is made out.

Ratio Decidendi

At the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the complaint and pre-summoning evidence. Detailed appreciation of evidence is not required. The allegations that the respondents showed a forged divorce decree and induced the appellant to marry and part with money disclose a prima facie case under Section 420 IPC and Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the fact that certain events had taken place thereafter, namely, apprising the appellant about the decree of divorce having been passed and showing the forged copy thereof to him on mobile. It was a preliminary stage of summoning. For summoning of an accused, prima facie case is to be made out on the basis of allegations in the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence led by the complainant.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a criminal complaint before the Magistrate, who issued summons. The respondents filed a revision before the Sessions Court, which partly allowed it quashing summons under Section 420 IPC and Section 420 read with Section 120-B IPC. The appellant challenged this before the High Court, which upheld the Sessions Court order. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 420, 120-B, 494, 495, 468, 471, 506, 34
  • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: 11, 13-B, 13(1)(i), 13(1)(i-a)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Insurance Company's Writ Against Ombudsman Award in PMFBY Crop Insurance Dispute. Error in Village Name by Cooperative Society Does Not Shift Liability to Insurer; Ombudsman's Award Upheld.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Bombay Quashes State Government's Cancellation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme Approvals and Directs Fresh Hearing. Inconsistencies Between Government Directives and SRA Circular Were Not Established, and Scheme Was Permitte...