Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court A Fresh Section 11 Arbitration Petition Without Liberty Granted at the Time of Withdrawal is Not Maintainable: Supreme Court; Principles of Order 23 CPC Applied Adult Sexual Predators Ought Not To Be Dealt With Leniency Or Extended Misplaced Sympathy: Sikkim High Court Retired Employee Entitled to Interest on Delayed Leave Encashment Despite Absence of Statutory Provision: Delhi HC Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Full Disability Pension and Service Element for Life to Army Veteran Taxation Law | Director Must Be Given Notice to Prove Lack of Negligence: Telangana High Court Quashes Order Against Director in Tax Recovery Case High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court

Supreme Court Quashes Conviction Under IPC Sections 354D and 506-Part I to Preserve Marital Harmony, Invokes Article 142

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed the conviction of Dasari Srikanth under Sections 354D and 506-Part I of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to prioritize matrimonial harmony. The decision was rendered by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, emphasizing the potential adverse impact on the marital relationship between the appellant and the complainant if the conviction was upheld.

The case revolves around the appellant, Dasari Srikanth, who was convicted by the Special Fast Track Court, Suryapet, for offences under Sections 354D (stalking) and 506-Part I (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The trial court acquitted him under the POCSO Act but sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and six months for the IPC offences. The High Court of Telangana, upon appeal, reduced the imprisonment to three months but upheld the conviction.

During the pendency of the appeal, Srikanth and the complainant got married, which led to the appellant seeking quashing of his conviction to prevent any harm to their matrimonial relationship.

The appellant and complainant's marriage was verified by the State of Telangana's standing counsel, confirming it was solemnized and registered under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

"The offences under Section 354D IPC and Section 506 IPC are personal to the complainant and the accused appellant. The fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of this appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed." [Para 7]

The court noted that upholding the conviction could have a "disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger." [Para 8]

The bench decided to use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice. "As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court." [Para 9]

The Supreme Court quashed the judgments of both the High Court and the trial court, thereby acquitting the appellant of all charges. The appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

Date of Decision:15th May 2024

Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana

Similar News