Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1210 OF 2023
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8742 of 2018)
RITU TOMAR …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Aravind Kumar, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The order dated 30.05.2018 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous
Writ Petition No.14422 of 2018 by the High Court of Allahabad
whereunder the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of the FIR dated
20.05.2018 registered in Case Crime No.97 of 2018 for the offence
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SNEHA DAS
Date: 2023.04.21
16:22:41 IST
Reason:
punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) by third respondent herein
2
came to be dismissed is challenged. Facts shorn of unnecessary details
and required for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are crystallized
hereunder:
3. The marriage of appellant’s sister Ms. Rekha, daughter of fourth
rd
respondent herein with 3 respondent came to be solemnized on
15.05.2011 as per the prevalent custom and usage which resulted in its
consummation and she gave birth to a baby girl who has been since
named Tejal.
4. The said Ms. Rekha alleging that she had been thrown out of
matrimonial home, sought for maintenance by filing a petition under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. which came to be registered as V. No.230 of 2014
and same is pending on the file of Principal Family Judge resulting in an
order being passed on 22.07.2017 directing third respondent to pay a
sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. She has also lodged an FIR in Crime
No.73 of 2017 on 15.03.2017 against third respondent and others for the
offences punishable under Section 498A, 406/34 of the IPC read with
Sections 3 and 4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act with the Harsh Vihar
Police Station, North East Delhi. On the basis of the said FIR registered
the jurisdictional police are said to have commenced the investigation.
3
5. When the aforesaid factual scenario existed, third respondent
filed an Application No.41 of 2018 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
alleging that appellant along with Respondent Nos.4 to 7 had forcibly
entered his house and with an intention to kill the complainant and his
father assaulted them with knife on the head of the applicant when they
refused to heed to their demands of shifting to Delhi after selling the
village land and house. On the basis of the said complaint made before
the Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Gautam Budh Nagar, a report was called
nd
for from 2 respondent, resulting in a report being submitted on
11.03.2018 opining that accused persons including the appellant never
visited the house of the complainant and said incident as alleged by the
complainant had not occurred. However, the Learned Magistrate by
Order dated 03.05.2018, ordered for registration of FIR and as such FIR
in Case Crime No.55 of 2018 for the offences noted hereinabove came to
be registered against appellant and others by the second respondent.
Hence, a petition for quashing of the said FIR came to be filed and same
having been dismissed present appeal has been filed.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocates appearing
for the parties and perused the records. On bestowing our careful and
4
anxious consideration to the contention raised by the appellant before the
High Court and reiterated before this Court we notice that undisputedly
third respondent who is the husband of the appellant’s sister and who
had filed an application under Section 156(3) before the Additional
st
Chief Judicial Magistrate-I , Gautam Budh Nagar in application No.41
of 2018 has expired during the pendency of the present proceedings.
Hence, his name came to be deleted vide Order dated 20.01.2020. None
have appeared for respondents 1 and 2.
7 . According to the report dated 11.03.2018 filed by the
jurisdictional police in response to the application filed under Section
156(3), it disclosed that complainant had married Ms. Rekha, namely,
sister of the appellant and said marriage had broken down which resulted
in disharmony between the two families. This situation had also led to
the filing of two cases by said Ms. Rekha against her husband for
maintenance in V. No.230 of 2014 wherein the respondent therein
namely husband (the complainant) had been ordered to pay a sum of
Rs.5,000/- per month as maintenance to his wife and she had also lodged
a report alleging harassment, demand for dowry etc. resulting in Crime
No.73 of 2017 being registered against her husband (the complainant
5
i.e., third respondent herein) and his family members. In this background
when the impugned order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate which has resulted in jurisdictional Magistrate directing the
nd
jurisdictional police, namely 2 respondent to register an FIR against
appellant is perused, it would clearly disclose that report which had been
called for by the Magistrate had been submitted on 11.03.2018
whereunder it has been clearly observed that after investigation it was
found that applicant (third respondent herein) on the basis of concocted
and baseless facts to mount pressure on his wife and his family members
had filed the application and none in the village where the complainant
resided have testified about the presence of the appellant and his family
members or they having visited the village Khatana and had caused
injuries to the complainant and his father on 26.01.2018 as alleged. The
jurisdictional police after investigation have also opined that incident
projected appears to be false. However, the impugned order of the
learned magistrate does not indicate as to the basis on which said report
dated 11.03.2018 was being rejected or why it does not deserve to be
accepted.
8. In the teeth of afore-stated facts and in the factual background of
there being dispute between two families, which had already resulted in
6
filing of two cases by the wife resulting in FIR being registered against
the complainant (third respondent herein) and his family Members and
the fact that none of the villagers including the neighbours of the
complainant having supported or testified about occurrence of any
incident on 26.01.2018 as claimed by the complainant, the irresistible
conclusion to be drawn by this court is to accept the report of the
jurisdictional police where under they have arrived at a conclusion that
incident projected by the complainant appears to be false, and thereby
the proceedings against the appellant deserves to be quashed.
9. Hence, we quash the proceedings registered as Crime No.97 of
2018 under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342 and 506 of IPC by
the second respondent in so far as appellant is concerned.
The appeal is allowed accordingly.
……………………………….J.
(B.R. Gavai)
…………………………………J.
(Aravind Kumar)
New Delhi
April 21, 2023