Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: Supreme 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

Latest Legal News