Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Kuldeep Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 1 October, 2024
Author: B.V. Nagarathna
Bench: B.V. Nagarathna
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
[Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.6448 of 2019]
KULDEEP SINGH & ANR. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.06.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Crl Misc. Case No.4620/2019 (482 Cr.P.C.), the appellants, who are the former brother-in-law and his wife of the second respondent-complainant have filed this appeal.
3. Briefly stated the facts are that the second respondent got married to the brother of the first appellant on 27.02.2013. However, the husband of second respondent went away to United Kingdom leaving behind the second respondent-complainant at Sirsa, Haryana after two months of marriage. Contending that she had Signature Not Verified suffered Digitally signed by RADHA SHARMA cruelty at the hands of the husband as well as the Date: 2024.10.16 14:39:48 IST Reason:
appellants herein, who are her brother in law and his wife, the 1 SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019 second respondent-complainant filed a complaint on 30.04.2015, However, there was a settlement arrived at before “the Panchayat” on 02.05.2015 as a result of which, the complaint filed on 30.04.2015 resulted in a closure report. Contending that there was cruelty meted out to her, the second respondent filed a complaint which resulted in registration of an FIR on 28.09.2015. It is to be noted that during this period, the second respondent-complainant also filed a petition seeking divorce and by judgment and decree dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Family Court at Lakhimpur Khiri, Uttar Pradesh divorce was granted to the second respondent and her husband.
4. It is also stated that thereafter on 05.01.2018, the second respondent has got married again and is now residing with her husband in Austria. Contending that the complaint made for the offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 354, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the appellants herein were not maintainable and that the charge-sheet filed against them on 20.03.2016 was not in accordance with law, they filed a petition invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court seeking quashing of the complaints against them.
5. By the impugned order, the High Court has stated that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet has been filed and therefore there is prima facie material against the appellants herein and therefore, the petition seeking quashing of the SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019 complaints against them was without merit. The High Court also directed that the appellants herein must surrender before the trial Court within fifteen days from the date of the order being 27.06.2019 and apply for bail and if applications for bail were filed, the same were to be considered in accordance with law.
6. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred this appeal. By an interim order dated 02.08.2019 the proceedings in Crl. Misc. Case No.1876/2016 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 before the P.S. Mahila Thana, District Kheeri and the summoning order dated 22.06.2016 pending before the A.C.J.M.-1, Kheeri along with all consequential proceedings in pursuance to the charge-sheet have been stayed by this Court.
7. We have heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the second respondent-complainant and learned counsel for the first respondent-State.
8. During the course of submission, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that earlier the second respondent-complainant had filed a complaint on 30.04.2015 which was closed on account of the settlement arrived at between the parties before the “Panchayat”. It is thereafter that another complaint was filed and F.I.R. has been registered on 28.09.2015 which is just five months after the closure of the first complaint. There was no cause for the second respondent-complainant to have filed another complaint 3 SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019 when the earlier complaint made by her on 30.04.2015 ended in a closure report on account of an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties. He next submitted that divorce has been granted to the second respondent-complainant and her first husband by judgment and decree dated 9.11.2017 in a petition filed by the second respondent-complainant seeking divorce. That the second respondent-complainant has since been married on 05.01.2018. That she has moved on in life. However, it is these appellants who are now suffering owing to the complaint made against them resulting in an F.I.R. and subsequent charge-sheet dated 20.03.2016. That these appellants are the ex-brother-in-law and his wife of the second respondent-complainant. The filing of the complaint as against them on 28.09.2015 was wholly unwarranted, as they were nowhere concerned with any act of cruelty that was meted out to the second respondent-complainant. If at all, she had any grievance as against her husband, the matter is pending consideration before the concerned Court. However, as far as these appellants are concerned, the complaint filed is frivolous, vexatious and unwarranted and hence, the application filed under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, seeking quashing of the same ought to have been allowed. The High Court was not right in dismissing the petition merely because the charge-sheet has been filed as against them. The High Court ought to have considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case and granted relief.
SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019
It was also submitted that the second respondent-complainant is now settled in Austria since her marriage and there is no progress in the case as such and the appellants herein are settled in United Kingdom. The former husband of the second respondent- complainant is also settled in United Kingdom. In the circumstances, the complaint as against the appellants herein may be quashed and consequently, all proceedings and steps taken pursuant to the said complaint may be quashed.
9. Learned senior counsel also submitted that in the event, this Court is not inclined to quash the complaint on the merits of this case, then this Court may exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and quash the complaints having regard to the order passed by this Court in the case of Arun Jain and Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 1810 of 2024 arising from SLP (Crl) No.9178/2018] and Mala Kar & Anr. vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No.1684 of 2024 arising from SLP (Crl) No.4195/2019] and the judgment passed by this Court in Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SC 635.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent- complainant vehemently submitted that there is no merit in this appeal; that the charge-sheet has already been filed in the instant case but the proceedings have not progressed owing to the interim stay granted by this Court. The High Court has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the appellants herein under Section 482 CrPC. 5 SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019 It may be that the second respondent-complainant has since married but having regard to the hardship and suffering that she underwent, there is ample material and proof as against the appellants herein as well as against her former husband. But, if at this stage, this Court is to quash the complaint then the same would not subserve the interest of justice. Although, the second respondent is now married and residing in Austria, she would be present on all dates of hearing as and when required by the Court to prosecute her case and therefore, this Court may simply dismiss this appeal.
11. Learned counsel for the first respondent-State submitted that the offences are disclosed in the complaint and therefore, there was no occasion for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC and the application has been rightly dismissed and hence this Court may dismiss this appeal.
12. We have heard learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the material on record.
13. We note that the High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the appellants under Section 482 CrPC on the ground that there has been an offence made out in the F.I.R. and secondly, charge- sheet had been filed and the trial Court is seized of the matter and therefore, it was not a case for quashing of the complaint. Be that as it may. The facts peculiar to the present case must be noted inasmuch as in the first complaint filed by the second SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019 respondent-complainant, on 30.04.2015, there was an amicable settlement arrived at between the parties which resulted in a closure of the complaint on 02.05.2015. However, within three months thereafter, the second respondent-complainant filed another complaint which resulted in an F.I.R. being registered on 28.09.2015 which was within a period of four months from the closure of the first complaint. During this period, the second respondent-complainant had also filed a petition seeking divorce and the said petition has resulted in an ex-parte decree of dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on 09.11.2017 which has attained finality. The ex-parte decree of divorce has been accepted by her husband and has not been challenged. Thereafter, the second respondent-complainant has got married again on 05.01.2018 and is now residing with here husband in Austria, whereas the appellants herein are residing in United Kingdom.
14. It may be that there has been a charge-sheet on the F.I.R. dated 28.09.2015 and the trial Court took cognizance of the same and proceedings had commenced. It is at that stage that the appellants filed the petition for quashing of the complaint. Whatever may be the allegations of the second respondent- complainant as against the appellants herein who are her former brother-in-law and his wife, the facts of this case narrated above would persuade us to exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the complaint as well as the charge-sheet and subsequent proceedings thereto as against the appellants herein. We 7 SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019 hasten to point out that the proceedings filed by the second respondent-complainant are continuing as against her former husband. As far as these appellants are concerned, we find that justice would be subserved in quashing the complaints and charge- sheet and subsequent proceedings as against them. In doing so, we place reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SC 635 and other decisions referred to above.
15. In the case of Mala Kar and Another vs. State of Uttarakhand (supra), this Court observed that the facts were that there had been a decree of divorce passed between the parties therein on 18.10.2014. It is thereafter that on 06.04.2015, the FIR was registered in respect of the criminal complaint filed on 09.08.2014. More significantly, the parties in the said case had since remarried and were leading their independent lives. Therefore, both parties had accepted the decree of divorce. In the above circumstances, this Court exercises powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the criminal complaint as well as the FIR and all other criminal proceedings commenced thereto by setting aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.
16. In Arun Jain vs. State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No.1810 of 2024 arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.9178 of 2018, it was noted that the appellants and respondent No.2 were married on 01.11.1996 and a daughter was born to them on 19.04.2001. It was also stated by learned counsel for the appellants that appellant No.1 left the SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019 matrimonial home on 23.04.2007 and thereafter respondent No.2 sought divorce which was granted by the Competent Court on 04.04.2013. It was only thereafter on 31.10.2013 that respondent No.2 filed the complaint against the appellants therein and the FIR was registered on 13.02.2014 and the chargesheet was filed on 22.09.2015. It was also to be noted that the proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the year 2008 by respondent No.2 therein culminated in the dismissal of the said proceeding on merits by order dated 28.07.2017 which had attained finality.
17. No doubt, in the aforesaid two cases, the criminal complaints were filed subsequent to the decree of the divorce being granted to the parties. However, the said fact would not make a difference in the instant case inasmuch as the second respondent herein is intending to pursue the criminal proceeding as against the appellants herein subsequent to her separation between her and her former husband. Further, she has remarried and is leading a marital life overseas in Austria. The appellants are also residing in United Kingdom. The complaint is of the year 2015 and for a period of nine years, there has not been progress owing to litigation pending between parties before the High Court as well as this Court, filed by the appellants herein seeking quashing of the complaint as well as the chargesheet dated 20.03.2016. We find that when the second respondent has moved on in life and is residing overseas in Austria pursuant to her subsequent marriage, permitting 9 SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019 the criminal proceedings to be continued would not subserve the interest of justice either from the point of view of second respondent or from the point of view of the appellants herein. We say so firstly, for the reason that the second respondent has separated from her husband and secondly, since marriage, she has been residing overseas and leading a peaceful married life. The appellants herein are also residing overseas. The continuation of the criminal proceedings by second respondent as against the appellants herein would only be a reliving of the hardship and suffering that she may have experienced in relation to her earlier marriage. Secondly, if proceedings against the appellants herein would result in acquittal, it would nevertheless be not only an inconvenience but a trauma for the appellants herein who are residing abroad. Since the second respondent has remarried and is having a marital life with her husband in Austria, we find that the interest of justice would be subserved if these proceedings are put to an end and result in a closure. We are of the view this would be in the interest of the second respondent or complainant as well as the appellants herein.
18. In the circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court is set-aside, the appeal is allowed and the complaint and F.I.R. dated 28.09.2015 and charge-sheet dated 20.03.2016 and the subsequent proceedings as against the appellants herein stand quashed.
19. It is needless to observe that as against the husband of the second-respondent, we have not opined anything on the merits of the SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019 case as against him.
20. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
. . . . . . . . . .,J [B.V. NAGARATHNA] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,J [NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH] NEW DELHI, OCTOBER 01, 2024 11 SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019 ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.9 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.6448/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-06-2019 in NO. No. 4620/2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench) KULDEEP SINGH & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Respondent(s) (MEDIATION REPORT RECEIVED) Date : 01-10-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH For Petitioner(s) Ms. Shalini Kaul, AOR Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Pushpinder Singh, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Wadhwani, Adv.
Mr. Sukhmandeep Singh, Adv.
Mr. Jayant Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Karishma Rajput, Adv.
Ms. Sagrika Arya, Adv.
Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Rajpal Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Anurag Rana, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Kartikay, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR
Mr. Ghanshyam Singh, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Antariksh Singh, Adv.
Ms. Rakhi Ray, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.SLP (Crl) No.6448/2019
The appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(KRITIKA TIWARI) (DIVYA BABBAR)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on file)
13