MEDHA SANTOSH SURVEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                               Digitally signed
                                               by CHITRA
                                       SANJAY
                              CHITRA   SONAWANE
                              SANJAY   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


                                       Page 1 of 6
                          __________________________________________________

                                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


                                      Page 2 of 6
                         __________________________________________________

                               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


                                      Page 3 of 6
                         __________________________________________________

                               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

                                     Page 4 of 6
                        __________________________________________________

                              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.




                                       Page 5 of 6
                          __________________________________________________

                                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.]




                                       Page 6 of 6
                          __________________________________________________

                                2 February 2026