Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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