When Police Search Both The Bag And The Body, Section 50 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed: Supreme Court Settles The Boundaries Of A Critical Safeguard Police Cannot Offer A Third Option During NDPS Search: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In 11 Kg Charas Case, Holds Section 50 Violation Vitiates Entire Trial Supreme Court Holds Employer Group Insurance Has No Connection With Accidental Death, Cannot Be Set Off Against Motor Accident Compensation Graduating Shouldn't Be A Punishment: Supreme Court Restores Rights Of Anganwadi Workers Denied Supervisor Posts For Being Over-Qualified Trustee Who Diverts Sale Proceeds of Charitable Trust Is an 'Agent' Under Section 409 IPC, Not Exempt From Criminal Breach of Trust: Bombay High Court AFGIS Is 'State' Under Article 12: Supreme Court Reverses Delhi High Court, Restores Writ Petitions of Air Force Insurance Society Employees Delhi High Court Issues Landmark Directions Against Repeated Summoning of Child Victims, Insistence on Presence During Bail Hearings In POCSO 'Accidental Injury' in Hospital Records, All Eye-Witnesses Hostile: Gujarat High Court Acquits Men Convicted for Culpable Homicide After 35 Years Medical Condition Alone Cannot Dilute the Statutory Embargo Under Section 37 NDPS Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Pre-emption Cannot Wait for Registration When Possession Has Already Changed Hands: Punjab & Haryana High Court Strikes Down Time-Barred Claim Listing a Case for Evidence Is Not Commencement of Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Allows Amendment of Plaint in Insurance Dispute Forgery Accused Cannot Be Declared 'Proclaimed Offender': Punjab and Haryana High Court Draws Critical Distinction Between 'Proclaimed Person' and 'Proclaimed Offender' A Two-Line Ex Parte Judgment Is No Judgment In The Eye Of Law: Madras High Court Declares Decree Inexecutable What Was Not Claimed Then Cannot Be Claimed Now: Calcutta High Court Applies Constructive Res Judicata to Bar Second Partition Suit Unregistered Family Settlement Creates No Rights in Immovable Property: Delhi High Court Rejects Brother's Ownership Claim Police Must Protect Lawful Possession When Civil Court Decree Is Defied: Kerala High Court Upholds Purchase Certificate Holder’s Rights Over Alleged Temple Claim One Mark Short, No Right to Appointment: Patna High Court Dismisses Engineer's Claim to Vacancies Left by Non-Joining Candidates Bombay High Court Binds MCA to Arbitration as "Veritable Party" in T20 League Dispute Silence in the Witness Box Can Sink Your Case: ‘Non-Examination Leads to Presumption Against Party’ — Andhra Pradesh High Court Sale Deed Holder With Registered Title Prevails Over Claimant Under Mere Agreement To Sell: Karnataka High Court Candidate With 'Third Child' Disqualification Cannot Escape Consequence By Avoiding Cross-Examination: 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