Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Cr P C

(CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342 and 506 – Quashing of FIR – 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 – Appeal allowed.

Bysclaw

Apr 24, 2023

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIVISION BENCH

RITU TOMAR — Appellant

Vs.

STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent

( Before : B.R. Gavai and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )

Criminal Appeal No. 1210 of 2023; (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8742 of 2018)

Decided on : 21-04-2023

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342 and 506 – Quashing of FIR – Intention to kill and assault with knife – There being dispute between two families, which had already resulted in filing of two cases by the wife resulting in FIR being registered against the complainant (third respondent) 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 – Appeal allowed.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. Anant Agarwal, Advocate and Ms. Sweta Rani, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Nischal Kumar Neeraj, Advocate, for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Aravind Kumar, J. – 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 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 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 appellants sister Ms. Rekha, daughter of fourth respondent herein with 3rd 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.

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 for from 2nd 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 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 appellants sister and who had filed an application under Section 156(3) before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Ist, 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 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 jurisdictional police, namely 2nd 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 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.

By sclaw

Related Post

Additional Accused Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 319 — The court can exercise power under section 319 CrPC even on the basis of examination-in-chief, which is part of the evidence.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Cr P C I P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Quashing of Criminal Proceedings under Section 482 in Cases with Predominantly Civil Character — The court reiterated the principle that criminal cases with overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions, matrimonial relationships, or family disputes, should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves — This principle is applied in the present case, where the dispute involved a loan transaction between the accused persons and the bank, and the parties had settled the matter through the One Time Settlement (OTS).

Oct 9, 2024 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 311, 313 and 173(8) — Case of Murder — Further investigation after the trial had concluded —Whether the High Court was justified in ordering further investigation after the trial had concluded —The appellant argued that the application for further investigation was a disguised attempt to reopen earlier proceedings and that the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application after charges were framed —The respondent contended that further investigation was necessary to ensure justice and that new facts and material had emerged —The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order for further investigation, stating it was unwarranted and not in accordance with the law —The Court found that the application for further investigation was filed too late and lacked new evidence that would justify reopening the case —The Court emphasized that further investigation should be ordered sparingly and only in exceptional cases to achieve the ends of justice — The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, dismissed the application for further investigation.

Oct 2, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw