Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has on April 26, 2024 emphasised that for summoning of an accused, a 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.

The apex court allowed a man to proceed against his wife and two others for offences of bigamy, cheating and criminal conspiracy for marrying him inspite of a subsisting marriage. 

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal allowed a plea by Aniruddha Khanwalkar against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order, which had upheld the sessions court's order to quash the summons issued against his wife, Sharmila Das and two others Usharani Das and Sangita.

"Considering the material on record, in our opinion the approach of the 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," the bench said.

The appellant contended a prima facie case was made out in the case as he had been dishonestly induced by the respondent nos 1, 2 and 3 to believe that the woman had obtained divorce by showing him a forged order from earlier marriage knowing well that it had not yet been dissolved as on the date of marriage with him, so they are liable to face trial.

According to the facts of the matter, the appellant and the woman came in contact through a matrimonial site. The appellant was already divorced whereas the woman 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 woman was earlier married at Mumbai and the divorce had already taken place. 

The man claimed, 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 March 11, 2018, the appellant gave his consent for the marriage. Date was fixed as April 28, 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 Rs 2 lakhs cash to the respondents as expenditure for marriage.

On June 16, 2018, on account of some medical complication, the appellant as well as the woman rushed to the clinic of a lady doctor in Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh), where couple resided after their marriage. The doctor disclosed that the woman was pregnant. 

The joy of the appellant knew no bounds whereas the woman was very sad. The message was even conveyed to the family members of the appellant as well as the woman. The respondent nos 2 and 3 were not happy. The appellant was surprised with the reaction. 

Later, when the appellant asked reasons from woman, 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 woman 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.

The appellant filed a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police of Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh on July 07, 2018 and to the Station in-Charge, Physical Shivpuri on July 08, 2018. However, no action was taken. It was thereafter, that the complaint was filed in the court before the Magistrate on July 20, 2018. 

The trial court after recording the preliminary evidence summoned the woman to face trial under Sections 494 and 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC and the respondent nos 2 and 3 to face trial under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC.

The order was challenged by the by the respondents before the Additional Sessions Judge, who held that no offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC was made out as the factum of earlier marriage of the woman was clearly disclosed to the appellant. 

The bench, however, said, "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. The Sessions Court has considered the revision against the summoning order as if after trial the findings of conviction or acquittal was to be recorded," the bench said.

"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," the bench added.

In a challenge by the appellant to the order in the quashing petition, the High Court dismissed the petition without recording any reasons, the court noted.

The bench set aside the High Court and the Sessions Court's orders and restored the complaint filed before the Magistrate, holding that 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.