Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 1826
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Surendra P.Tavade, J.
Popat - Appellant
Versus
Shakuntala - Respondent
Criminal Writ Petition No. 303 of 2021
Decided On : 06-09-2021
N.B.Narwade, Advocate, N.C.Garud, Advocate, G.L.Deshpande, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
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 related to cheating and conspiracy.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - CHALLENGE TO QUASHING OF PROCESS - IPC SECTIONS 420, 406, 109, 34; Cr.P.C. SECTION 202, 397 - The court discussed the applicability of IPC sections concerning cheating and criminal conspiracy, emphasizing the necessity for full disclosure of marital status in marriage settlements. The court interpreted the role of family members in the concealment of material facts, leading to the conclusion that there was sufficient ground to issue process against them, thus reversing the Sessions Court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a private complaint against several respondents for offenses under IPC sections 420, 406, 109, and 34, alleging that they concealed the marital status of accused Jagdish during the marriage settlement of his daughter, Supriya. The Sessions Court quashed the order of issue process against the respondents, which the petitioner challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sessions Court erred in concluding that the respondents were unaware of Jagdish's previous marriages. The evidence indicated that the respondents, being family members, likely had knowledge of Jagdish's marital history, which was material to the marriage settlement.
Issues: Whether the respondents had knowledge of Jagdish's previous marriages and whether their failure to disclose this information constituted sufficient grounds for issuing process against them under the relevant IPC sections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that at the stage of issuing process, the focus is on whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further, not on the likelihood of conviction. The court emphasized the importance of full disclosure in marriage settlements and the responsibility of family members to provide accurate information.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the Sessions Court's order was set aside, and the order of issue process against the respondents was confirmed.
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, 109, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said order of issue process was challenged before the Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar under section 397 of the Cr.P.C. On hearing the parties, the Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar partly allowed the revision and set aside the order of issue process against respondent Nos.1 to 4, which is impugned in this petition.
5. The petitioner alleged in the complaint that his daughter Supriya, who was married on 09.12.2012. But she took divorce from her husband. It is contended that the petitioner was trying to settle second marriage of his daughter - Supriya. In August, 2017 accused Kaushik came to his house and he disclosed that he wishes to settle marriage of his son Jagdish with Supriya. Accused Kaushik disclosed that his son Jagdish was married but he took divorce. Accused Kaushik gave information of his family, his financial condition and income of son Jagdish. It is also contended that accused Kaushik informed the petitioner that accused Jagdish was married to daughter of Laxman Tupe, namely, Yogita, but accused Jagdish had taken divorce from his wife Yogita. He also showed divorce papers to him. It is further contended that on 21.11.2017 marriage of Supriya was performed with Jagdish. Prior to settlement of marriage respondent Nos.1 to 4 and original accused Jagdish and Kaushik had come to the house of the petitioner. There was discussion amongst themselves regarding settlement of marriage. In the said discussion original accused Jagdish, Kaushik and respondent Nos. 1 to 4 did not disclose to the petitioner that accused Jagdish was married to one Amita Nimbalkar and the said marriage was subsisting. It is stated that after the marriage of daughter of petitioner - Supriya went to the house of matrimonial house. She stayed there for 8 - 10 months. During the stay in the matrimonial house, she saw reply given by Advocate D.N. Bade, wherein it was mentioned that Amita Nimbalkar was first wife of accused - Jagdish and the said marriage was subsisting. The petitioner sought explanation of accused Jagdish and Kaushik as well as respondents, but they did not give any satisfactory answer. Therefore, the petitioner filed private complaint against original accused Jagdish, Kaushik and respondent Nos.1 to 4, wherein the Trial Court issued process. The said order was partially modified by the Sessions Court, which is under challenge.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel submits that respondent No.1 is mother of accused Jagdish, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are sisters of Jagdish and respondent No.4 is husband of respondent No.3. He also contends that respondent Nos.1 to 4 are family members of original accused Jagdish and Kaushik. They knew that Jagdish was married to Amita Nimbalkar in the year 2013. Thereafter, he married to his cous
