Supreme Court of India Judgements

46420 Judgements hosted as on 27/04/2024 - 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

Cr P C I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – 147, 342, 323, 307 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173(2) , 190 (1)(b) and 200 – Protest Petition – Magistrate to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint, proceeding according to Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C – The Court’s reasoning focused on the proper procedure for taking cognizance of an offence and the treatment of a Protest Petition when additional affidavits are filed – The conclusion emphasizes the Magistrate’s liberty to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and the need to follow due process – The judicial opinion clarified the legal position regarding the Magistrate’s options upon receiving a closure report from the Investigating Officer.

Apr 27, 2024 sclaw
Cr P C

“FIR Quashed! Supreme Court Overturns Charges of Cheating After Finding Insufficient Evidence” – The Court finds that the FIR and charge-sheet, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the ingredients to attract the provision of Section 420 of IPC against the appellant – The Court discusses the principles for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash complaints and criminal proceedings – The Court allows the appeal, quashing the order of the High Court and the FIR and charge-sheet against the appellant.

Mar 25, 2024 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Inherent Powers – Where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature, is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code – High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature.

Mar 23, 2024 sclaw

Leave a Reply

You missed

State Laws

Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 – The case involves the acceptance of Change Reports for the Vahiwatdar (Administrator) and Trustees of Shri Mallikarjun Devasthan, a Public Trust – The High Court invalidated the acceptance and remanded the matters for reconsideration – The main issue was the delay in filing the Change Report for the new Vahiwatdar of the Trust, which was submitted 17 years after the previous Vahiwatdar’s death – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, confirming the acceptance of Change Report Nos. 899 of 2015 and 1177 of 2017, allowing the civil appeals – The Court found that the delay in filing the Change Report was a curable defect and did not impact the legitimacy of the new Vahiwatdar’s assumption of office – The Court emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay, citing precedents.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Service

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 – Sections 7, 8 and 9 – Procedure for resignation by employees of private schools – The appellant challenged his termination from, which was set aside by the Tribunal but reinstated by the High Court – The main issues were whether the appellant’s resignation was lawfully withdrawn and if the documents related to his resignation were fabricated – The appellant argued that his resignation withdrawal was not considered and that the school committee’s resolutions were fabricated – The respondents contended that the resignation was accepted by the management committee and the school committee, and the appellant was informed accordingly – The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the appellant’s resignation was voluntary and lawfully accepted – The Court found no evidence of fabricated documents and determined that the management committee’s acceptance of the resignation was valid – The Court referenced the MEPS Act and Rules, concluding that non-communication of resignation acceptance does not invalidate the termination – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant’s resignation was accepted before his attempted withdrawal, and thus the termination was lawful.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(7) – “financial creditor” – The appeals challenge judgments related to the status of certain creditors of M/s. Mount Shivalik Industries Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) – The primary issue is whether the respondents are financial creditors or operational creditors within the meaning of the IBC – The appellants argue that the respondents are operational creditors, as the agreements indicate services rendered to promote the corporate debtor’s products – The respondents contend that the agreements were a means to raise finance, making them financial creditors due to the interest-bearing security deposits – The Court upheld the NCLAT’s decision, recognizing the respondents as financial creditors based on the commercial effect of the transactions – The Court examined the true nature of the transactions and found that the arrangements had the commercial effect of borrowing, satisfying the criteria for financial debt under the IBC – The Court applied the definition of financial debt and operational debt from the IBC, emphasizing the disbursal against the consideration for the time value of money – The appeals were dismissed, confirming the respondents’ status as financial creditors and allowing the resolution process to continue accordingly – The Court’s detailed analysis affirmed the NCLAT’s interpretation of the IBC provisions.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw
Family Court I P C

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.

Apr 28, 2024 sclaw