Blog

Case Title – Bharat Singh Chouhan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Number – Writ Petition No. 7831 of 2024

Dated on – 12^th April, 2024

Quorum – Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Bharat Singh Chouhan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the Appellants, Bharat Singh Chouhan, Ram Singh Chouhan, Ankit Singh Chouhan and Kamala Devi Chouhan, through their Counsel, filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Appellants claimed that the wedding between Ankit Singh Chouhan (Appellant No.3) and Kamnee Singh Chouhan (Respondent No.11), was held on the 11^th of June,2023. However, it was discovered subsequently, that the Respondent No. 11 had misstated her educational qualification to Ankit Singh Chouhan. She purported that she had qualified her Class 12^th, but later it was exposed that she only had the qualification till 10^th grade. Consequently. Ankit Singh Chouhan lodged a complaint on various forums, alleging fraud in the marriage and seeking the registration of an offense under the Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, through an investigation it was detected by the Station House Officer (SHO) of the Mahila Thana, Katni, that there was no merit in the allegations and concluded that the wedding between Ankit Singh Chouhan and Kamnee Singh Chouhan was valid.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case, contented that the wedding between Ankit Singh Chouhan and Kamnee Singh Chouhan was conducted relying on the false pretext provided by the Respondent No.3 (Kamnee Singh Chouhan) concerning her educational qualification.
2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case, contented that the wedding constituted fraud under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which attracts legal actions against the Respondents.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

1. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case, repudiated the allegations made by the Appellants and contented that the wedding was valid under law and no offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 was committed.
2. The Respondent, through their counsel, in the present case, contented that the Appellant was attempting to tarnish the reputation of the Mother-in-Law of Ankit Singh Chouhan, which they considered unjustified and defamatory and that it was an offense under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code,1860.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India prescribes the power of the High Courts to issue writs.
2. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 states the offense of Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
3. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 governs the validity of the Hindu Marriages
4. Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 prescribes the list for grounds of divorce
5. Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 prescribes Punishment for Defamation

ISSUES

1. The main issue of the case revolved around whether the misstatement of educational qualification in a marriage amounts to an offense under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code,1860?
2. Whether the accusation of corruption against the police officials and the defamation of the mother-in-law of Ankit Singh Chouhan were justified?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Bharat Singh Chouhan Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, scrupulously analysed the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 and the Indian Penal Code,1860 regarding the accusations made by the Appellants. The court stated that the misstatement of the educational qualification in a marriage did not amount to fraud under the Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Moreover, the court did not find any grounds for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 based on such accusations. The court stated that it was sham and defamatory, laying accusations of corruption against the police official and the assassination of the character of the mother-in-law of Ankit Singh Chouhan. It accentuated that making unsubstantiated allegations against individuals or departments without any conclusive evidence was objectionable. The court, thus, dismissed the Writ Petition and imposed a cost of Rupees 25,000 on the Appellants for their superficial accusations. The Appellants were ordered to deposit the cost withing one month, failing which a contempt of court proceedings would be instituted against them.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment