Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.109 OF 2012
Pooja Rana … Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. … Respondents
O R D E R
1. This petition has been filed for quashing the First
Information Report No. 609 of 2012 under Sections 363, 366,
328 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called
‘IPC’) registered at Police Station Hissar, (City) Haryana and for
further direction to the State Authorities to register the criminal
JUDGMENT
case against the petitioner’s father, mother and maternal uncle.
2. The writ petition has been filed alleging that the
petitioner was born on 2.9.1993, thus she was major and has a
right to choose a person with whom she wants to settle in her life.
Petitioner married one Sachin Kumar Rana, resident of Sambhal,
Moradabad, (U.P.) of her free will. However, her parents and
Page 1
maternal uncle had registered a criminal case against her husband
and they are harassing him. Thus, the petition has been filed for
the aforesaid reliefs.
3. The matter was heard at length on 24.8.2012 and Mr.
Gaurav Kumar Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner was asked to explain as under what circumstances
such a writ petition can be entertained as it suffers from
following basic defects:
(i) The FIR sought to be quashed has not been placed on
record.
(ii) The person who is to be granted protection i.e. Shri
Sachin Kumar Rana is not a party as either petitioner or the
respondent.
(iii) The complainant-persons who are harassing the
JUDGMENT
petitioner’s husband Sachin Kumar Rana, namely Ashok Bansal-
father, Sunita Bansal-mother and Subhash Gupta-maternal uncle
are not the parties before us.
4. As learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to
provide proper assistance, we adjourned the case for today and
also requested the learned Advocate-on-record who has signed
the petition to remain present in the court so that he can explain
2
Page 2
as to whether such a petition is maintainable or ought to have
been filed.
5. In Surinder Singh v. Central Government & Ors. ,
AIR 1986 SC 2166, this Court dealt with an issue for quashing
of order which had not been made part of the record and
observed as under:
“…..In the absence of the impugned order it
would not be possible to ascertain the reasons which
may have impelled the authority to pass the order. It
is therefore improper to quash an order which is not
produced before the High Court in a proceeding
under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The order of the
High Court could be set aside for this reason…”
6. It is not the case of the petitioner that she had made any
attempt to get the copy of the FIR and it was not made available
to her. Nor there is any statement in her petition that she tried to
lodge the FIR against her parents and uncle but it was not
JUDGMENT
accepted. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to explain as
why the necessary parties, i.e. the complainants as well as the
person for whom the protection is sought have not been
impleaded.
7. While dealing with a similar situation, this Court in Re:
Sanjiv Datta , (1995) 3 SCC 619, held as under:
3
Page 3
“…..Some members of the profession have been
adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice
of the profession as is evident from their absence
when the matters are called out, the filing of
incomplete and inaccurate pleadings — many
times even illegible and without personal check
and verification, the non-payment of court fees and
process fees, the failure to remove office objections,
the failure to take steps to serve the parties, et al. They
do not realise the seriousness of these acts and
omissions. They not only amount to the contempt
of the court but do positive disservice to the
litigants and create embarrassing situation in the
court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay
in the disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the
health of our judicial system……The lawyers took
their profession seriously and practised it with dignity,
deference and devotion. If the profession is to survive,
the judicial system has to be vitalised. No service will
be too small in making the system efficient, effective
and credible….” (Emphasis added)
8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that such a
petition does not deserve to be entertained. It is accordingly
dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the
JUDGMENT
petitioner, if so advised, may move the High Court for appropriate
relief by filing appropriate petition.
……………………………J.
(Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN)
…………………………...J.
(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR)
New Delhi,
August 27, 2012
4
Page 4
JUDGMENT
5
Page 5