MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

At the Preliminary Stage, the Focus is Not on the Truthfulness of the Allegation but on the Existence of Sufficient Ground to Proceed: Supreme Court on Establishing Prima Facie Case in Summoning Stage

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court has set aside the High Court and Sessions Court decisions, restoring the summoning orders against respondents involved in a case of marital deceit and financial inducement. Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal presided over the bench, emphasizing the importance of a prima facie case at the summoning stage in criminal proceedings.

Legal Background: The appellant, Aniruddha Khanwalkar, was challenging the decisions that quashed summoning orders for offences under Section 420 (Cheating) and Section 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations pertained to deceit about the marital status of respondent no.1 and inducing the appellant to part with ₹2 lakhs for marriage expenses under false pretenses.

Core Issues and Facts: The appellant’s marriage was conducted under the impression that respondent no.1 was divorced, which later turned out to be false. Subsequent revelations about her pregnancy and ongoing marital status with another individual led the appellant to confront significant legal and personal dilemmas.

Criteria for Summoning: “At the preliminary stage, the focus is not on the truthfulness of the allegation but on the existence of sufficient ground to proceed,” Justice Bindal remarked. This observation was critical in reversing the lower courts’ decisions which improperly dismissed the necessity of a prima facie case at the summoning stage.

Error in Lower Court Judgments: The apex court criticized the lower courts for their failure to appreciate the basic requirements at the summoning phase, noting that the case was treated unfairly as though it was at the trial stage rather than the preliminary examination of available evidence.

Prima Facie Evidence Overlooked: The judgment highlighted that both documentary and oral evidence presented by the appellant was sufficient to establish a prima facie case which the Sessions and High Courts failed to acknowledge correctly.

Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reinstating the original summoning order by the Magistrate, which directed the respondents to face trial under the implicated sections of the IPC. The trial is to proceed based on its merits, taking into account all the evidence presented.

Date of Decision: April 26, 2024

Aniruddha Khanwalkar vs. Sharmila Das & Others

Latest Legal News