SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Mohd. Julfukar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttarakhand and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2024, SLP (Crl.) No. 10842 of 2022
Decided On : 09-01-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 376 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Rape and criminal intimidation – Appellant was in relationship with complainant – Relationship of appellant with complainant was against wishes of parents but they decided to reside together – However, there was discord between them and after that they started residing separately – Thereafter, complainant filed FIR under Sections 376, 377 and 506 of IPC – Complainant had stated before Judge that she was forced to solemnize marriage against her wishes with appellant – As such, relationship between appellant and complainant was after the marriage – Even if statement made by complainant is taken on its face value, ingredients to constitute offence under Section 376 IPC are not made out – Both appellant and complainant have resolved their disputes and decided to lead their lives peacefully – Continuation of proceedings in these circumstances would be prejudicial even to interest of complainant and she would be forced to continue with case, which she does not want – Continuation of criminal proceedings would not be in interest of justice – Impugned order passed by High Court so also FIR quashed and set aside. (Paras 4.1, 4.4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges order dated 11th October 2022, passed by High Court of Uttarakhand in C-482 No.666 of 2020, vide which application filed by present appellant for quashing of the proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 came to be rejected.
Findings of Court:
Now even complainant herself does not want to proceed further with proceedings. She has stated in her affidavit filed before this Court that they have mutually obtained divorce and it was finalized by Talaq-E-Khula on 7th September 2022.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the State and for the complainant has vehemently opposed this appeal.
3. This appeal challenges the order dated 11th October 2022, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in C-482 No. 666 of 2020, vide which the application filed by the present appellant for quashing of the proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) came to be rejected.
4. The undisputed facts which lead to filing of the present appeal are as under:
4.2 The father of the complainant filed a Habeas Corpus Petition No. 27 of 2018 before the High Court alleging therein that his daughter was illegally detained by the appellant herein and for a direction for production of the complainant.
4.3 In the said proceedings, the High Court, vide order dated 24th July 2018, observed thus:
“2. In this Habeas Corpus petition, this Court vide order dated 19.07.2018 had asked the girl to be produced before this Court. The girl, namely, Ms. Aisha is present in person before this Court. Her date of birth is twenty years. This court also had an occasion to interact with the girl. She seems to be articulate, and an adult who can take decisions for herself. She has given a categorical statement before this Court that she wants to go with respondent no. 3, who is her husband. Her presence was hence exempted.
3. In view of the above, nothing further needs to be done by this Court. The petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. Ms. Aisha is set free to go with her husband, as this is her wish as stated before this Court in person by her.”
4.4 It appears that thereafter the appellant and the complainant resided together for a considerable time. However, there was a discord between them and after that they started residing separately. Thereafter, the complainant filed an FIR being No. 474 of 2019 before the Police Station Bhagwanpur, District-Haridwar for the offences punishable under Section 376, 377 and 506 of the IPC.
5. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Saurabh Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. When the matter was heard by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the learned Judge, as can be seen from the impugned order, had also interacted with the complainant. A perusal of the impugned order would clearly reveal that the complainant had stated before the learned Judge that she was forced to solemnize the marriage against her wishes with the appellant herein. It is, thus, clear from her own statement that she was forced to marry the appellant. As such, the relationship between the appellant and the complainant was after the said marriage.
7. It could thus be seen that even if the statement made by the complainant is taken on its face value, the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 376 IPC are not made out.
8. In any case, the complainant has filed an affidavit dated 16th January 2023 before this Court. In the said affidavit, she has stated thus:
2. That marriage/Nikah of the Respondent no. 2 and the petitioner was duly solemnized on 01.01.2018. It is further clarified that Respondent no. 2 had married with the petitioner as per her free will and there is no child from this Nikah.
3. That due to the interference from the respective families which further led to the serious differences and bitterness amongst the parties (after one and half years of marriage) and thereafter a Criminal Case under sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the Respondent no. 2 against the petitioner in the Court and FIR No.
A redundant criminal proceeding cannot be allowed to continue.
Quashing of criminal proceedings is justified when a settlement between parties is reached, and prosecution cannot be sustained.
Quashing of criminal proceeding – Court will not be justified in embarking upon enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made in FIR or complaint.
Ends of justice are higher than ends of mere law though justice has got to be administered in accordance with laws enacted by Legislature.
The court can invoke its power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash a criminal proceeding when the matter has been settled between the parties and continuing the proceeding wo....
In view of settlement between parties, parties can be permitted to compound their offences.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.