Case Title: Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr.
Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No. 2877/2021
Decided On: 22.01.2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipanker Datta
Facts of the Case:
The appellants challenged the Trial Magistrate’s decision in a Criminal Revision Petition, which the Karnataka High Court denied. In relation to FIR No. 141/2010, the matter concerns charges made against the appellants under Sections 420, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The disagreement started as a result of marital conflict; the appellant-wife claimed that her husband, Respondent No. 2, had tortured and coerced her during their travel to India. This led to a number of complaints and counter-complaints, including claims that the young child’s passport had been obtained through fraud.
Legal Provisions
Sections 420, 468, 471, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) are relevant to this case. Cheating, forgery committed with the aim to deceive, using a forged document as authentic, and activities committed by many people in support of a shared goal. The allegations relate to the purported fraud and forgery in getting a young child’s passport, which resulted in a criminal prosecution against the appellants.
Issues
In this case, there are claims of forgery, cheating, and other linked offenses. The IPC’s Sections 420, 468, and 471 in conjunction with Section 34 accuse the appellants of obtaining a young child’s passport by purported forgery. In addition, allegations of coercion and abuse throughout the marriage, are there. The main legal difficulties in the case are the interactions between criminal processes, allegations of forgery, and family disputes.
Courts analysis and decision
The Criminal Revision Petition contesting the Trial Magistrate’s ruling in relation to the FIR, against the appellants for offences committed was dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka. Allegations of deception about the young child’s passport application were present in the case. Respondent No. 2 was accused by the appellants of coercion and torture, which prompted a countercomplaint. The appellants’ motion for discharge was rejected by the court, which took note of the contradicting accusations and allowed the trial to continue for offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC.
“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.”
Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari
click here to read the judgment
