Back
SURENDRA P. TAVADE
Popat – Appellant
Versus
Shakuntala – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith with the consent of the parties.
2. By way of present petition the petitioner /original complainant is challenging order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision No.8 of 2021 dated 09.02.2021, whereby the Sessions Court has quashed the order of issue process against original accused Nos.3 to 6 i.e. respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
3. The facts giving rise to present petition can be summarized as under :-
4. The petitioner has filed private complaint against respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the original accused - Jaydeep alias Jagdish Kaushik More and Kaushik Rambhau More for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406, 109, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar. Said complaint was referred to police for enquiry under section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, Tofkhana Police Station carried out investigation and submitted report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. On the basis of said report the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued process against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and original accused - Jagdish and Kaushik for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406,
The court established that family members involved in marriage settlements have a duty to disclose relevant marital history, and failure to do so can lead to criminal liability under IPC provisions r....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the learned Magistrate to apply his mind properly while issuing process, as emphasized in the relevant judgments.
The magistrate must apply proper scrutiny and findings before issuing process; mere witness statements are insufficient for triggering criminal proceedings.
Judicial notice cannot replace the need for evidence in maintenance proceedings, and courts must assess evidence alongside judicially noticed facts.
The court emphasized that in matrimonial disputes, criminal charges must be supported by substantial evidence to avoid misuse of legal processes against family members.
General allegations against in-laws in matrimonial disputes require specific accusations to avoid quashing of FIR under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
In cases under Section 498A IPC, the Magistrate should consider the factors laid down by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation before issuing a warrant of arres....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
