Ritu Tomar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

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)

JUDGMENT

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

Signature Not Verified 20.05.2018 registered in Case Crime No.97 of 2018 for the offence 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

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. 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

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 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

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 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

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 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