Supreme Court revives cheating charges in marriage fraud case: Aniruddha Khanwalkar vs. Sharmila Das (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 26 April 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 342

Judges: C.T. Ravikumar, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can a person be held liable for cheating if they misrepresent their marital status and induce someone into marriage? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a man alleged that he was deceived into marrying a woman who had not yet obtained a divorce from her previous marriage. This case highlights the intersection of personal relationships and criminal law, specifically concerning fraudulent misrepresentation in the context of marriage. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with the opinion authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The appellant, Aniruddha Khanwalkar, and respondent no. 1, Sharmila Das, met through a matrimonial website. During their initial interactions, Sharmila Das indicated that she was in the process of obtaining a divorce. Aniruddha and his family met Sharmila and her family, including respondent nos. 2 and 3, in Visakhapatnam on March 9 and 10, 2018. At this meeting, Sharmila showed Aniruddha a smudged copy of a divorce order on her mobile phone, claiming the original was pending the judge’s signature. Relying on this, Aniruddha agreed to marry Sharmila. The marriage was solemnized on April 28, 2018. The respondents also misrepresented their financial condition, leading Aniruddha to spend ₹ 2 lakhs and bear all marriage expenses.

On June 16, 2018, Sharmila was found to be pregnant. When Aniruddha confronted her about her reluctance to celebrate, she confessed that she had not yet obtained a divorce from her previous marriage. The divorce document she had shown earlier was forged. Aniruddha, feeling cheated, filed a police complaint on July 8, 2018, which was not acted upon. He then filed a criminal complaint before the Magistrate on July 20, 2018.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Magistrate, after recording preliminary evidence, found a prima facie case and issued process against Sharmila under Sections 494 (marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse) and 420 (cheating) read with Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Magistrate also issued process against respondent nos. 2 and 3 under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

The Sessions Court partly allowed a revision petition filed by the accused, setting aside the summoning order under Section 420 of the IPC against respondent no. 1 and under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC against respondent nos. 2 and 3. The Sessions Court upheld the summoning order against respondent no. 1 under Section 494 of the IPC.

The appellant challenged the Sessions Court’s order before the High Court, which dismissed the petition without providing any reasons. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 420, IPC: This section deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. It states: “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 120-B, IPC: This section defines criminal conspiracy. It states: “Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.”
• Section 494, IPC: This section deals with the offence of marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the respondents dishonestly misrepresented Sharmila’s marital status by showing a forged divorce order. This misrepresentation induced him to marry her and part with ₹ 2 lakhs and bear all marriage expenses.
• The appellant contended that the respondents conspired to cheat him and that he was threatened with false cases when he confronted them.
• The appellant submitted that the High Court and Sessions Court failed to appreciate the facts and evidence presented, which clearly showed a prima facie case of cheating and conspiracy.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that they had disclosed Sharmila’s previous marriage to the appellant from the beginning, and therefore, no offence of cheating could be made out.
• They contended that there was no criminal conspiracy and that the orders passed by the Sessions Court and High Court were correct.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

1. Whether the High Court and the Sessions Court were correct in setting aside the summoning order against the respondents under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any case laws or books in this judgment. However, the court did consider the following legal provisions:

• Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
• Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offence of criminal conspiracy.
• Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the offence of marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court used the following legal provisions in its reasoning:

• Section 420, IPC: The Court used this provision to determine that the misrepresentation of marital status and the presentation of a forged divorce decree constituted cheating.
• Section 120-B, IPC: The Court used this provision to determine that the actions of the respondents indicated a criminal conspiracy to cheat the appellant.
• Section 494, IPC: The Court used this provision to determine that the facts of the case constituted the offence of marrying again during the lifetime of a spouse.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the dishonest inducement and misrepresentation by the respondents. The Court noted that the respondents not only misrepresented the marital status of respondent no. 1 but also presented a forged divorce decree to the appellant. This act of deceit, coupled with the financial inducement, weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to restore the summoning order.

The Court also highlighted that the lower courts had erred in their appreciation of the facts and evidence at the preliminary stage. The Sessions Court, in particular, treated the revision petition as if it were a final trial, which was not appropriate at the stage of summoning. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition without recording any reasons, further contributing to the misapplication of law.

The court’s reasoning was based on the facts presented in the complaint and the evidence led by the appellant. The court found that “a prima facie case was made out for issuing process against the respondents to face trial for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC, for which they were summoned.” The court further clarified that “The Learned Sessions Court has considered the revision against the summoning order as if after trial the findings of conviction or acquittal was to be recorded. It was a preliminary stage of summoning.” The court also observed that the High Court dismissed the petition “without recording any reasons.”

The court did not discuss any alternative interpretations of the facts or legal provisions. The decision was based on a straightforward application of the law to the facts as presented. The court’s reasoning emphasized the need for the lower courts to correctly appreciate the evidence at the preliminary stage of summoning.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court and Sessions Court erred in setting aside the summoning order. The court restored the Magistrate’s order, directing the respondents to face trial for the offences under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The court clarified that its decision was not a final opinion on the merits of the case and that the Trial Court would decide the case based on the evidence led by the parties.

Key Takeaways

• Misrepresenting marital status and presenting forged documents during marriage negotiations can lead to charges of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC.
• Individuals involved in such misrepresentations can also be charged with criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC.
• Lower courts must carefully appreciate facts and evidence at the preliminary stage of summoning and should not treat it as a final trial.
• The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of honesty and transparency in matrimonial alliances.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the High Court and the Sessions Court and restored the order of the Magistrate. The Trial Court was directed to decide the case on its own merits based on the evidence led by the parties.

Development of Law

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that misrepresentation of marital status, coupled with the presentation of a forged divorce decree, and the inducement to marry constitutes a prima facie case of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This decision clarifies that even if the fact of a previous marriage is disclosed, subsequent misrepresentations and fraudulent acts can still lead to criminal charges.

This judgment reinforces the legal principle that fraudulent misrepresentation in matrimonial matters can attract criminal liability. It also serves as a reminder that lower courts must carefully assess the evidence at the preliminary stage and not prematurely dismiss cases where a prima facie case is made out. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of honesty and transparency in matrimonial alliances and clarifies that deceitful actions can lead to criminal charges.

Conclusion

In Aniruddha Khanwalkar vs. Sharmila Das & Others, the Supreme Court of India overturned the High Court and Sessions Court’s decisions, reinstating the Magistrate’s order to summon the respondents for trial under Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Court emphasized that the misrepresentation of marital status and the presentation of a forged divorce decree constituted a prima facie case of cheating and conspiracy. This judgment underscores the legal consequences of dishonesty in matrimonial matters and reinforces the need for lower courts to thoroughly evaluate evidence at the preliminary stage.