Dismissed

Suvarna Prashant Salve v. Vimal Pandit Salve and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2020WP/576/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging the confirmation of a discharge order. The court held that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to the decision-making process, noting no fault existed there. The court ruled that mere presence at a second marriage without active aid or intention does not establish criminal liability for abetment.

What did the court decide?

The petition challenging the confirmation of the discharge order is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.

Suvarna Prashant Salve Vs Vimal Pandit Salve and Anr. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

23-WP-576-2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.576 OF 2018

¶5

SUVARNA PRASHANT SALVE)...PETITIONER

¶6

V/s.

¶7

VIMAL PANDIT SALVE AND ANOTHER)...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr.Satish Mande, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶9

Ms.Varsha Pichaya a/w. Mr.Sachin Padaye, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.

¶10

Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

CORAM:A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE:21st JANUARY 2020

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1This is a petition by the first wife i.e. the original
complainant challenging the order of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge upholding discharge of respondent no.1 i.e.
mother of original accused no.1 – husband, who allegedly
contracted second marriage with accused lady.

¶14

avk 1/4

¶15

23-WP-576-2018.doc

¶16

2Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
/ original complainant. He argued that it is highly improbable
that respondent no.1/original accused would not remain present
in the marriage of her own son with the co-accused. He submitted
that there is enough evidence to show that she was present in the
marriage, and therefore, the impugned order of confirmation of
discharge needs to be quashed and set aside.

¶17

3The learned counsel for respondent no.1 drew my
attention to the order passed by the learned trial Magistrate and
particularly to paragraph 15 thereof.

¶18

4I have considered the submissions so advanced and

¶19

also perused the material placed before me.

¶20

5Being mother of the husband, who contracted second
marriage, respondent no.1 came to be arraigned as an accused in
the private criminal complaint filed by the petitioner. The learned
trial Magistrate allowed her discharge application and discharged

¶21

avk 2/4

¶22

23-WP-576-2018.doc

¶23

her from offences punishable under Sections 494, 109 read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

6It is observed thus by the learned trial Magistrate in

¶25

paragraph 15 of its order, which came to be confirmed in

¶26

revision :

¶27

“15It is to note that the complainant did not
disclose the source wherefrom she got to know
about the second marriage. She does not disclose
name of witnesses who had witnessed the second
marriage. She did not aver overt acts of accused
No.2 to 4. She merely stated that accused No.2 to 4
were present. Mere presence was not enough as
held in the cited judgment. Actual role of individual
accused is nowhere averred in the complaint…...”

¶28

7The learned trial Magistrate further observed that
verification statement of the complainant i.e. petitioner herein
does not mention about presence of respondent no.1/original
accused i.e. mother of the respondent at the time of second
marriage. While upholding the discharge, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge observed that respondent no.1 herein is mother of

¶29

avk 3/4

¶30

23-WP-576-2018.doc

¶31

accused no.1 and she cannot be roped in the offence alleged in the
complaint simply because she is mother of accused no.1.

¶32

8Jurisdiction of this court conferred by Article 227 of
the Constitution of India can be exercised in the limited arena of
decision making process. No fault with the decision making
process either of the learned trial Magistrate or that of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge is pointed out. Abetment requires
instigation or incitement as well as provocation. Nothing is
pointed out to demonstrate that with active aid of respondent
no.1 herein, the act of offence took place. Even intention is also
not pointed out. Therefore, even if it is assumed that respondent
no.1 herein was present at the time of the incident, she cannot be
fastened with criminal liability.

¶33

9The petition, as such, is devoid of merits, and

¶34

therefore, the same is dismissed.

¶35

(A. M. BADAR, J.)

¶36

Arti V. Khatate

¶37

avk 4/4

¶38

Digitally signed by Arti V. Khatate Date: 2020.01.22 17:05:59 +0530

Suvarna Prashant Salve v. Vimal Pandit Salve and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suvarna Prashant Salve v. Vimal Pandit Salve and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tushar Dilip Sampat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Pandurang Kalate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajmal Amarchand Jain Vs Mangal Murti Developers Private Limited and Ors.

Faisal Latif Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gopal Gundu Sutar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kaushalya R.Sampat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra