SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 470

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.
Santosh Bakshi – APPELLANT
Vs.
State of Punjab & Ors. – RESPONDENTS
[Criminal Appeal No.1251 of 2014 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.7104 of 2013]
Decided On : 30-06-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 182, IPC is attracted when a person gives false information knowing it to be false.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 182 – Respondents filing complaint alleging that appellant made false complaint – Investigating agency, without proper investigation proceeding u/s 182 – Respondents not able to show falsity of information given by appellant – Even investigation report not stating that appellant gave false information – Yet High Court mechanically dismissed application u/s 482 CrPC – No sustainable. (Para 17, 18)

       Facts of the case:

       Appellant got married to the brother of respondent no.3-Vivek Kumar Bakshi. After marriage, she shifted to her matrimonial house at Ludhiana and just thereafter her in- laws started demanding dowry. The husband of the appellant always stood with her and protected her from various atrocities committed by in-laws and respondent no.3. When the matter became out of control the appellant made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar alleging therein continuous harassment, beating and maltreating meted out to her in connection with dowry with specific allegations with date, time etc.

       Police kept the matter pending for long and refused to take any action. No FIR was registered in spite of the fact that the complaint disclosed cognizable offence.

       Then the appellant filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her in-laws. In the said case, her in-laws arrived at a compromise with the appellant that they will allow her to live in her matrimonial house at Ludhiana. They also agreed that no maltreatment will be meted out to her and they will keep her in a nice manner and they will remain bound by their statements.

       Respondent no.3 submitted an affidavit before the Police Authorities stating that the allegations in the complaint are false and to take action u/s 182 IPC against the appellant. On the basis of affidavit, Police submitted a Calendra No.18 dated 5th October, 2009 in the Police Station Division No.1. The approval for taking action against the appellant u/s 182 IPC was obtained from SSP, Jalandhar.

       Aggrieved by the aforesaid false and frivolous Calendra, the appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous petition u/s 482 Cr.PC before the High Court which was rejected.

       Finding of the Court:

       Complaint filed u/s 182 IPC is fit to be quashed.

       Result:

       Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12th July, 2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-1834 of 2010 (O & M). By the impugned order, the High Court rejected the petition filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.PC') preferred by the appellant.

3. The case of the appellant is that she got married to the brother of respondent no.3-Vivek Kumar Bakshi on 4th August, 2006. After marriage, she shifted to her matrimonial house at Ludhiana and just thereafter her in- laws started demanding dowry. The husband of the appellant always stood with her and protected her from various atrocities committed by in-laws and respondent no.3. When the matter became out of control the appellant on 17th January, 2009 made a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (now known as Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar) alleging therein continuous harassment, beating and maltreating meted out to her in connection with dowry with specific allegations with date, time etc.

4. According to the appellant, Police kept the matter pending for long at the instance of respondent no.3 and refused to take any action. No FIR was registered in spite of the fact that the complaint disclosed cognizable offence.

5. On 6th April, 2009, the appellant filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') against her in-laws. In the said case, her in-laws arrived at a compromise with the appellant that they will allow her to live in her matrimonial house at Ludhiana. They also agreed that no maltreatment will be meted out to her and they will keep her in a nice manner and they will remain bound by their statements.

6. Further case of the appellant is that respondent no.3 having personal grudge with her husband due to greed of property submitted an affidavit on 23rd April, 2009 before the Police Authorities. Respondent no.3 also stated that the allegations in the complaint are false and to take action u/s 182 IPC against the appellant. On 24th April, 2009, Deputy Superintendant of Police, Jalandhar submitted a report in which the assertions made by respondent no.3 were considered and the complaint was filed in the office. On the basis of affidavit, Police submitted a Calendra No.18 dated 5th October, 2009 in the Police Station Division No.1, which was prepared and presented in the Court by Rajesh Kumar, SI SHO Division No.1, Jalandhar. The approval for taking action against the appellant u/s 182 IPC was obtained from SSP, Jalandhar in November, 2009.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid false and frivolous Calendra, the appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-1834 of 2010 u/s 482 Cr.PC before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh which was rejected by the High Court by impugned order and judgment dated 12th July, 2013.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:

(i) The High Court has wrongly concluded that since husband of the appellant was not made a party, complaint was filed with ulterior motive.

(ii) The High Court also failed to consider that in the complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the allegations are identical to the complaint made to the Police.

9. On the other hand, according to learned counsel for the respondents, the appellant all the time filed false and frivolous complaints before the Police Authorities.

10. In the affidavit (Annexure P/3) respondent no.3 alleged that the appellant has lodged false complaint against his parents, sister, brother and brother-in-law. Name of Respondent No.3 was not there but when he helped his old parents, brother, sister and brother-in-law in shifting from Ludhiana to Jalandhar then appellant mentioned his name. Respondent no.3 further alleged that the appellant and her husband are harassing him by lodging false complaint at Ludhaina



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top