Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 38
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.10842 of 2022)
MOHD. JULFUKAR …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the State and for the
complainant has vehemently opposed this appeal.
th
3. This appeal challenges the order dated 11 October
2022, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in C-482
No.666 of 2020, vide which the application filed by the
present appellant for quashing of the proceedings under
Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, “IPC”) came to be rejected.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.01.13
12:35:51 IST
Reason:
4. The undisputed facts which lead to filing of the present
1
appeal are as under:-
4.1 The appellant was in relationship with the complainant.
It appears that the relationship of the appellant with the
complainant was against the wishes of the parents but they
decided to reside together.
4.2 The father of the complainant filed a Habeas Corpus
Petition No.27 of 2018 before the High Court alleging therein
that his daughter was illegally detained by the appellant
herein and for a direction for production of the complainant.
4.3 In the said proceedings, the High Court, vide order
th
dated 24 July 2018, observed thus:-
“2. In this Habeas Corpus petition, this Court vide
order dated 19.07.2018 had asked the girl to be
produced before this Court. The girl, namely, Ms.
Aisha is present in person before this Court. Her
date of birth is twenty years. This court also had an
occasion to interact with the girl. She seems to be
articulate, and an adult who can take decisions for
herself. She has given a categorical statement
before this Court that she wants to go with
respondent no.3, who is her husband. Her presence
was hence exempted.
3. In view of the above, nothing further needs to
be done by this Court. The petition fails and it is
hereby dismissed. Ms. Aisha is set free to go with
her husband, as this is her wish as stated before
this Court in person by her.”
4.4 It appears that thereafter the appellant and the
complainant resided together for a considerable time.
2
However, there was a discord between them and after that
they started residing separately. Thereafter, the complainant
filed an FIR being No. 474 of 2019 before the Police Station
Bhagwanpur, District-Haridwar for the offences punishable
under Section 376, 377 and 506 of the IPC.
5. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Trivedi,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. When the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge
of the High Court, the learned Judge, as can be seen from
the impugned order, had also interacted with the
complainant. A perusal of the impugned order would clearly
reveal that the complainant had stated before the learned
Judge that she was forced to solemnize the marriage against
her wishes with the appellant herein. It is, thus, clear from
her own statement that she was forced to marry the
appellant. As such, the relationship between the appellant
and the complainant was after the said marriage.
7. It could thus be seen that even if the statement made by
the complainant is taken on its face value, the ingredients to
constitute the offence under Section 376 IPC are not made
out.
3
8. In any case, the complainant has filed an affidavit dated
th
16 January 2023 before this Court. In the said affidavit,
she has stated thus:-
“1. That I am Respondent No.2 in the
abovementioned Special Leave Petition and as such
is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That marriage/Nikah of the Resp. no.2 and
the petitioner was duly solemnized on 01.01.2018.
It is further clarified that resp. no.2 had married
with the petitioner as per her free will and there is
no child from this Nikah.
3. That due to the interference from the
respective families which further led to the serious
differences and bitterness amongst the parties (after
one and half years of marriage) and thereafter a
Criminal Case under sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by
the Resp.no.2 against the petitioner in the Court
and FIR No.474/2019, dt.13.10.2019 was registered
at P.S.-Bhagwanpur, District-Haridwar, Uttarakhand
and the same is pending as Criminal Case No.542 of
2020 “State Vs Kari Julfukar” pending before the
Court of Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate,
Roorkee, District-Haridwar.
4. That the petitioner thereafter approached the
Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
seeking quashing of the abovementioned criminal
case.
5. That in the meantime the matter between the
parties was resolved amicably and since it was not
possible for the parties to reside together and they
mutually decided for Talaq (divorce) and their
divorce was finalized by Talaq-E-Khula
dt.07.09.2022. The respondent has also filed her
affidavit in the Hon’ble High Court at Nainital
stating that the matter has been settled and she
does not want to proceed further i.e., prosecute the
4
petitioner further.
6. That Resp. no.2 further reiterates that the
dispute between the parties has been resolved and
settled amicably after mediation between the parties
and she wants to move on in her life and does not
want to proceed further against the petitioner in the
above mentioned Criminal Case No.542 of 2020
“State Vs Kari Julfukar” pending before the Court of
Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Roorkee,
District-Haridwar.
7. That the contents of the facts stated in
paragraph no.1 to 6 of this affidavit are true and
correct to my knowledge and based on record.
Nothing material has been concealed there from.”
9. It is thus clear that now even the complainant herself
does not want to proceed further with the proceedings. She
has stated in her affidavit filed before this Court that they
have mutually obtained a divorce and it was finalized by
th
Talaq-E-Khula on 7 September 2022.
10. We find that the continuation of proceedings in these
circumstances would be prejudicial even to the interest of the
complainant and she would be forced to continue with the
case, which she does not want.
It appears that both the appellant and the complainant
11.
have resolved their disputes and decided to lead their lives
peacefully.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that
12.
the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be in
5
the interest of justice.
th
13. The impugned order dated 11 October 2022 passed by
the High Court so also the FIR No. 474 of 2019 are quashed
and set aside.
14. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
15.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
..............................J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 09, 2024
6