DIGAMBAR AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

DIGAMBAR AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

The allegations in the FIR were vague, omnibus and, when compared with the doctor’s statement and surrounding facts (including that the FIR was lodged after a divorce notice and that there was no allegation the appellants knew of the pregnancy), did not, even if accepted at face value, prima facie make out offences against the appellants under Sections 498-A, 312, 313 and 34 IPC; continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and the High Court should have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: Digambar Suryawanshi; Appellant: Kashibai Suryawanshi; Respondent State: State of Maharashtra; Respondent Complainant: Pushpa Madhav Suryavanshi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Before the Supreme Court Resulting in Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Quashing of FIR, Section 482 Cr.p.c., Section 498 a IPC, Sections 312 and 313 IPC, Cruelty in Matrimonial Context, Miscarriage, Abuse of Process, Vague Allegations
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Family Law Quashing of FIR Section 482 Cr.p.c. Section 498 a IPC Sections 312 and 313 IPC Cruelty in Matrimonial Context +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Digambar Suryawanshi

Appellant

Kashibai Suryawanshi

Appellant

State of Maharashtra

Respondent State

Pushpa Madhav Suryavanshi

Respondent Complainant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Before the Supreme Court Resulting in Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 312, 313 and 34 IPC
  2. 2 Whether the allegations in the FIR, when taken at face value, disclose a prima facie case against the appellants

Ratio Decidendi

The allegations in the FIR were vague, omnibus and, when compared with the doctor’s statement and surrounding facts (including that the FIR was lodged after a divorce notice and that there was no allegation the appellants knew of the pregnancy), did not, even if accepted at face value, prima facie make out offences against the appellants under Sections 498-A, 312, 313 and 34 IPC; continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and the High Court should have exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The impugned judgment and order dated 23rd January 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in Criminal Application No. 859 of 2019 is quashed and set aside.