Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Medha Santosh Surve vs The State Of Maharashtra
2026 Latest Caselaw 1152 Bom

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 1152 Bom
Judgement Date : 2 February, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Medha Santosh Surve vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 February, 2026

Author: R.N. Laddha
Bench: R.N. Laddha
                                                                  Digitally signed
                                                                  by CHITRA
                                                           SANJAY
                                                  CHITRA   SONAWANE
                                                  SANJAY
2026:BHC-AS:5305                                           Date:
                                                  SONAWANE 2026.02.02
                                                                  21:41:34
                                                                  +0530




         Chitra Sonawane.                                                                             10-CRA-551-2015.docx


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      Criminal Revision Application No.551 of 2015

        Medha Santosh Surve
        Age 45 years, Occ: Housewife,
        residing at Parmar CHS "E" Wing,
        Flat No.412, Hanuman Road,
        Vile Parle, Mumbai.                                                                          ... Applicant

                versus

        1. The State of Maharashtra
           (At the instance of Juhu Police
           Station, vide C.R.No.193/2013)

        2. Manhar Jairam Bhai Surati
           B-8-18, Muthuswami Chawl,
           VS Road, Nehrunagar,
           Vile Parle (W),
           Mumbai - 400 059                             ... Respondents
                                      ----
        Mr Ashish Baraskar, a/w. Mr Aavez Shaikh, for the applicant.
        Mr Arfan Sait, APP, for respondent No.1/ State.
        None for respondent No.2.
                                      ----
                                                                                       Coram: R.N. Laddha, J.

Date: 2 February 2026.

P.C.:

Heard Mr Ashish Baraskar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant, and Mr Arfan Sait, the learned

__________________________________________________

2 February 2026

Chitra Sonawane. 10-CRA-551-2015.docx

Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondent/ State.

2. This revision application takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28 September 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in Sessions Case No.379 of 2014, whereby the application for discharge filed by the applicant/ accused No.2 was rejected.

3. The First Information Report (FIR) is lodged by the father of the deceased, Shobhana Surti. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution that Shobhana was in a romantic relationship with the accused, Swapnil Surve, and they intended to marry. Swapnil's parents opposed the union and demanded Rs.25 lakhs as dowry shortly before the wedding. Although an initial complaint was filed, it was later closed after discussions. Shobhana and Swapnil secretly married on 22 November 2012, but Swapnil claimed his parents would not accept Shobhana and kept her at a friend's house. When the complainant approached Swapnil's parents to formalise the marriage, they refused and reiterated their demand for Rs.25 lakhs, threatening harassment and harm if Shobhana entered their home without payment. After three months, Swapnil left Shobhana at her parental home, stating she would only be

__________________________________________________

2 February 2026

Chitra Sonawane. 10-CRA-551-2015.docx

accepted after the dowry was paid, and later began supporting his parents' demands and threatening remarriage. On 22 May 2013, Shobhana committed suicide at the complainant's residence, shortly after speaking with Swapnil on the phone. Based on these allegations, an FIR was lodged on 23 May 2013 for offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A, and 306, read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Upon a perusal of the records, it appears that the applicant is the mother of the co-accused Swapnil and the mother-in-law of the deceased. The material collected during the investigation, including the statements of several witnesses, prima facie indicates the active involvement of the applicant in the dowry demand and the consequential ill-treatment of the deceased.

5. The statement of Bhavika, the sister of the deceased, specifically attributes the applicant's participation in the dowry demand and the refusal to permit the deceased to enter the matrimonial home after the marriage. She has stated that the applicant was explicitly named in the deceased's earlier complaint and that the persistent dowry demand was the cause of severe mental stress to the deceased. The supplementary statement of the complainant, the deceased's father, further

__________________________________________________

2 February 2026

Chitra Sonawane. 10-CRA-551-2015.docx

alleges that the applicant, along with other family members, categorically refused to recognise the marriage and threatened harassment and assault if the deceased entered the matrimonial home without payment of Rs.25 lakhs. The statement of Abhilasha, the friend with whom the deceased resided after her marriage, corroborates the prosecution's case by stating that the applicant and the co-accused remained adamant in their demand for dowry and that the deceased was compelled to stay away from her matrimonial home on that account. The statement of Kalpana, the mother of the deceased, similarly attributes mental agony suffered by the deceased to the conduct of the applicant and other accused, arising from the refusal to accept the deceased and the threats allegedly extended.

6. Significantly, the statement of Ahmed Usman Sayyed, a co- worker of the deceased, reflects that even prior to the marriage, the applicant was supporting the demand for dowry and was instrumental in preventing the marriage, which caused humiliation and distress to the deceased. His statement also indicates that after the marriage, the deceased continued to be denied entry into the matrimonial home due to the non- fulfilment of the dowry demand. The statement of M. Sethilkumar further lends support to the prosecution's version by narrating an incident wherein the applicant and other family

__________________________________________________

2 February 2026

Chitra Sonawane. 10-CRA-551-2015.docx

members demanded dowry as a condition for consenting to the marriage.

7. At the stage of consideration of an application for discharge, the trial Court is not expected to meticulously evaluate the evidence or determine the likelihood of conviction. The settled legal position is that if the material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, which has not been satisfactorily explained, the trial Court would be justified in framing charges and proceeding to trial. The scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction against an order rejecting discharge is even more limited, and unless the order suffers from patent illegality or perversity, no interference is warranted.

8. In the present case, the material on record, taken at face value, discloses prima facie the ingredients of the offences alleged against the applicant, particularly in relation to cruelty and dowry demand, and their proximate nexus with the mental distress suffered by the deceased leading up to her death. The allegations are not vague or general in nature, but are supported by consistent statements of multiple witnesses attributing a specific role to the applicant.

__________________________________________________

2 February 2026

Chitra Sonawane. 10-CRA-551-2015.docx

9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the relevant material and has rightly concluded that a prima facie case is made out against the applicant, warranting her trial along with the other accused. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error calling for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.

10. In light of the foregoing discussion, the present revision application is devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. The learned trial Court is requested to proceed with the trial expeditiously and in accordance with the law.

[R.N. Laddha, J.]

__________________________________________________

2 February 2026

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter