In a significant legal case, the Supreme Court of India has provided a judgment on the Aniruddha Khanwalkar(appellant)’s complaint against Sharmila Das, Usharani Das, and Sangita. The case revolves around various charges including Sections 494 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant sought annulment of marriage under the 1955 Act due to discrepancies in the respondent’s marital status. This judgment sets precedence in handling complex legal matters involving multiple parties. Stay informed with the latest legal developments in the case.
Facts
- Appellant filed a complaint against Sharmila Das, Usharani Das, and Sangita.
- Magistrate ordered process against Sharmila Das for offences under Sections 494 and 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC.
- Magistrate also directed process against Usharani Das and Sangita for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC.
- Accused filed Revision Petition before the Sessions Court which partly allowed the petition.
- Sessions Court set aside the cognizance of the offence under Section 420 IPC against Sharmila Das.
- No offence under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC was found by the Sessions Court due to disclosure of earlier marriage to the appellant.
- High Court dismissed the quashing petition without recording reasons.
- The approach of Sessions Court and High Court in setting aside the summoning order was deemed legally unsustainable.
- Complainant challenges the High Court’s order setting aside the summoning order.
- Appellant’s marriage with Sharmila Das was challenged due to her existing marriage without divorce.
- Appellant sought annulment of marriage under the 1955 Act.
- The appellant and Ms. X met through a matrimonial site.
- Appellant was divorced, while Ms. X claimed to be in the process of divorce.
- Appellant’s family visited Visakhapatnam to meet Ms. X and her family.
- During the meeting, a blurry copy of a divorce decree was shown on a mobile phone to the appellant.
- Appellant later found out Ms. X was still married and had not obtained a divorce.
- Despite this, a marriage was planned, and money was given for expenses.
- Later, Ms. X was found to be pregnant, causing shock and distress to the appellant.
- Appellant felt deceived and filed a police complaint.
Also Read: Anticipatory Bail Application Rejected in Appellants vs. State Case
Decision
- The judgment clarifies that the statements made in the preceding paragraphs are not to be treated as a final opinion on the merits of the controversy.
- The Trial Court is instructed to decide the case based on the evidence presented by both parties.
- The appeal is allowed, leading to the High Court and Sessions Court orders being nullified, and the Magistrate’s order being reinstated.
Also Read: Assessment of Compensation in Multi-Income Source Fatality Case
Case Title: ANIRUDDHA KHANWALKAR Vs. SHARMILA DAS (2024 INSC 342)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002272-002272 / 2024
