Supreme Court Restores Cheating Charges in Marriage Fraud Case

In Aniruddha Khanwalkar v. Sharmila Das & Ors. (2024 Latest Caselaw 274 SC), the Supreme Court restored criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The Court observed that at the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate is only required to ascertain whether a prima facie case exists and not undertake a detailed appreciation of evidence. 

The appellant came into contact with Respondent No.1 through a matrimonial website. Although she had disclosed that she was previously married, the appellant alleged that during subsequent meetings, she and her family falsely represented that a decree of divorce had already been granted. A blurred copy of the alleged divorce decree was shown to him on a mobile phone, and he was informed that the signed copy would be provided later. Believing these representations, the appellant agreed to the marriage, which was solemnised on 28 April 2018. He also alleged that, on the respondents' representation of financial hardship, he paid ₹2 lakh and bore the marriage expenses. After the marriage, the appellant discovered that Respondent No.1 was pregnant and had not obtained a divorce from her first husband before marrying him. He alleged that the divorce decree shown earlier was forged and that the respondents had deliberately deceived him into the marriage. The Magistrate, after considering the complaint and preliminary evidence, summoned Respondent No.1 for offences under Sections 494 and 420 read with Section 120B IPC and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for offences under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC. The Sessions Court set aside the summoning order in respect of the cheating charges, and the High Court upheld that decision. The appellant challenged both orders before the Supreme Court. 

The principal issue was whether the complaint and the pre-summoning evidence disclosed a prima facie case of cheating and criminal conspiracy warranting issuance of process against the respondents under Sections 420 and 120B IPC. 

The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Court and the High Court had adopted an incorrect approach. The Court observed that:

•Although the respondent had disclosed her earlier marriage, she had allegedly represented that a decree of divorce had already been granted. 

•The appellant had specifically alleged that a forged and unclear copy of the divorce decree was shown to him to induce him to consent to the marriage. 

•The appellant further alleged that he was induced to spend substantial amounts towards the marriage on the basis of false representations. 

•The Sessions Court examined the matter as though it was deciding the case after trial instead of determining whether a prima facie case existed. 

•At the stage of issuing summons, the Magistrate is only required to consider whether the complaint and the preliminary evidence disclose sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. 

•The High Court also failed to assign proper reasons while affirming the Sessions Court's order. The Supreme Court concluded that the allegations and the evidence produced before the Magistrate were sufficient to justify the issuance of process for offences under Sections 420 and 120B IPC. 

The Supreme Court:

•Allowed the appeal. 

•Set aside the judgments of the Sessions Court and the High Court. 

•Restored the Magistrate's order issuing summons against the respondents for offences under Section 420 read with Section 120B IPC. 

•Clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of summoning and would not influence the trial on merits. 

The judgment reiterates that at the stage of issuing process, courts are required only to determine whether the complaint and the preliminary evidence disclose a prima facie case. It also affirms that deliberate misrepresentation regarding marital status or the existence of a valid divorce decree, if made to induce another person into marriage, may constitute the offence of cheating. The decision further emphasises that revisional and inherent jurisdiction should not be exercised by conducting a detailed evaluation of the evidence before trial.