Full Judgment Text
2024 INSC 5
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2024
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) no.147 of 2017)
Ajeet Singh … Appellant
versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. At the instance of the third respondent, a First
Information Report (the FIR), being Case Crime no.106 of 2016,
was registered at the Police Station Naka, District Lucknow,
Uttar Pradesh, for the offences punishable under Sections 376
and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’)
wherein the appellant was shown as an accused. A writ
petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench for quashing the FIR.
th
By the impugned judgment dated 7 December 2016, the High
Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2024.01.03
15:48:13 IST
Reason:
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Criminal Appeal 32 of 2024
Page 1 of 7
2. In the complaint, on the basis of which the FIR was
registered, the allegation of the third respondent was that his
daughter (victim – name masked) was studying in Lucknow for
coaching in Banking. Her age was 25 years. He stated that
the appellant was running IIT coaching classes in Delhi. They
met and developed a love for each other. The appellant assured
the victim to marry her. When the third respondent
approached the appellant’s father and brother with the
proposal of marriage, they declined the same. Thereafter,
under the pressure exerted by the victim, the appellant got
prepared a certificate of marriage from Arya Samaj Mandir. By
playing fraud, the appellant maintained a physical relationship
with the victim. He stated that the relatives of the appellant
threatened him. He stated that after exploiting his daughter,
nd
the appellant came to Sitapur at his residence on 22 April
2015 and left the victim there. The complaint was filed by the
th
third respondent on 27 May 2015, on the basis of which the
FIR was registered.
th
3. The High Court vide order dated 18 October 2016 issued
a notice on the writ petition and granted interim relief
restraining the Police from taking the appellant into custody,
subject to the condition that the appellant must join the
th
investigation at 10 a.m. on 6 June 2016 at Police Station
Sitapur, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh and thereafter, as and
when required. Shri Abhay Nath Tripathi filed an affidavit in
th
terms of the order dated 18 October 2016 passed by the High
Court. He stated that he recorded the statements of both the
Criminal Appeal 32 of 2024
Page 2 of 7
victim and the appellant, which showed that a marriage was
solemnized between them. However, he stated that the
appellant did not fulfil his matrimonial obligations. The
allegation is that to avoid criminal proceedings, a petition for
restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, ‘HMA’) was filed by the appellant.
He stated that the concerned officer conducted the
investigation in a fair manner. He stated that the victim was
ready to stay with the appellant, and therefore, the
chargesheet, though ready, has not been filed to facilitate the
amicable settlement of the dispute. The successor of the said
th
officer filed a counter affidavit to the writ petition on 11
August 2017 justifying the registration of the FIR, which also
refers to the petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of
the HMA.
SUBMISSIONS
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant, invited
st
our attention to Annexure P-2, which is a notice dated 1 May
2015 issued by an advocate on behalf of the victim. The
learned counsel submitted that in the notice, the victim
admitted that a marriage was solemnized between her and the
th
appellant. He pointed out that on 6 May 2015, a petition
under Section 9 of the HMA was filed by the appellant against
the victim for restitution of conjugal rights. He submitted that
th
within a few days thereafter, on 27 May 2015, the third
respondent lodged the FIR. He urged that the prosecution of
the appellant is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
Criminal Appeal 32 of 2024
Page 3 of 7
Therefore, the High Court ought to have quashed it. He pointed
out that even the Investigating Officer filed an affidavit stating
that as the appellant had married the victim, the allegation of
rape may not be substantiated.
5. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for
the respondent–State of Uttar Pradesh, supported the
impugned judgment and submitted that the ingredients of the
offences under Sections 376 and 506 of the IPC were made out.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS
6. Shri Abhay Nath Tripathi, Circle Officer, Kaisarbagh,
District Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh filed an affidavit on behalf of
the State Government stating that the marriage certificate
produced along with the writ petition was genuine and that the
petition filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights
was pending. He referred to the statements of both the
appellant and the victim recorded by him and stated that the
main grievance of the victim was that the appellant was not
performing his matrimonial obligations. However, in the
counter affidavit filed subsequently by the successor of the
Circle Officer, it was contended that the marriage ceremony
between the appellant and the victim was a farce made only to
enable the appellant to establish sexual relations with the
victim.
st
7. Annexure P-2 is the legal notice dated 1 May 2015
issued by Shri Aftab Ahmed, Advocate, on behalf of the victim.
In the notice, the victim has been described as the wife of the
Criminal Appeal 32 of 2024
Page 4 of 7
appellant. In the counter affidavit filed by the Circle Officer,
the genuineness of Annexure P-2 is not disputed. In
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the notice, it is stated thus:
“1. That through this notice I am
informing Sri Satyendra Singh that on
16.2.2001 (sic), your son Ajeet Singh has
solemnized marriage according to Vedic
rites and ceremonies in his own wish,
willingly with my client XXXX (name
masked) daughter of Ram Naresh at Arya
Samaj Mandir.
2. That from 16.2.2015 to 21.4.2015
your son Ajeet Singh and XXXX (name
masked) both had been living as
husband and wife at Lucknow and
Delhi. ”
8. Thereafter, in paragraphs 3 and 4, it is alleged that the
victim was turned away from the matrimonial home by the
appellant on the ground that his father wanted a sum of Rs.50
lakhs. By the said notice, the victim called upon the appellant
to arrange “Vidai”. Within five days of sending the notice, on
th
6 May 2015, the appellant filed a petition for restitution of
conjugal rights against the victim.
9. The allegation in the FIR lodged at the instance of the
third respondent is that the appellant maintained a physical
relationship with the victim by giving her a false promise of
marriage. It is stated that a certificate of marriage was got
prepared by the appellant from Arya Samaj Mandir to put
pressure on the victim. It is alleged that the appellant left the
nd
victim in her house on 22 April 2015 and has never returned
st
to take her back. The notice dated 1 May 2015 issued by the
Criminal Appeal 32 of 2024
Page 5 of 7
advocate for the victim clearly admits that the marriage
th
between the appellant and the victim was solemnized on 16
February 2015. A copy of the statement of the victim recorded
rd
on 23 November 2016 by an officer of Police Station Naka,
Lucknow, is placed on record, in which she stated that the
appellant forced her to have a physical relationship with her in
th
a hotel in Delhi on 4 December 2014. Thereafter, the physical
relationship was maintained by the appellant. She stated that
th
on 16 February 2015, the appellant took her to Arya Samaj
Mandir and solemnized the marriage where no other person
was present. She stated that thereafter, they stayed in a hotel
th
till 19 February 2015. In March 2015, she stayed with the
appellant for three to four days. From the end of April 2015,
the appellant stopped attending to her phone calls. Thus, the
relationship between the appellant and the victim was a
consensual relationship which culminated in the marriage. In
the legal notice issued on behalf of the appellant, the factum of
marriage was admitted. Therefore, on the face of it, the
allegation that the physical relationship was maintained due to
false promise given by the appellant to marry, is without basis
as their relationship led to the solemnization of marriage.
Therefore, this is a case where the allegations made in the FIR
were such that on the basis of the statements, no prudent
person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the appellant. Therefore, clause
(5) of the decision of this Court in the case of State of Haryana
Criminal Appeal 32 of 2024
Page 6 of 7
1
& Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors. will apply. Hence, a case was
made out for quashing the FIR.
10. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench dated
th
7 December 2016 and quash the Case Crime no.106 of 2016
registered against the appellant at Police Station Naka, District
Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
11. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
….…………………….J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
…..…………………...J.
(Pankaj Mithal)
New Delhi;
January 03, 2024.
1
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Criminal Appeal 32 of 2024
Page 7 of 7