Suresh Kankra vs State Of Uttar Pradesh, SC 2022
FACTS – Substance of the complaint against the petitioner is that he committed the offense alleged when the respondent no.2 went to the field of one Atal Singh, father-in-law of the petitioner for collecting fodder.The petitioner was arrayed as accused for the offences punishable under Section 376, 354, 354B, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act.
The registration of the offence was done in pursuant to the application filed invoking Section 163(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) before the jurisdiction of Magistrate. It was alleged that despite oral and written complaints, the respondent no.1 did not choose to register the complaint.
The petitioner filed an application under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the complaint registered interalia alleging that the entire complaint is fostered against the petitioner who is a retired person by his estranged sister-in-law out of the family dispute. He is not even the resident of that area. A similar complaint was given by her against his son which was closed on investigation as false and motivated. The respondent no.2 is actually a resident of the village Malakpur and she is her domestic help.
The petitioner was actually attending the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat at the time of the alleged incident. There are number of litigations going on between the parties including a complaint registered at the instance of the petitioner’s mother-in-law against Smt. Asha in Complaint Case under Sections 323, 504, 354B, 392 IPC.
The High Court declined to exercise the power conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.PC interalia holding that facts being in the realm of dispute,discretion cannot be exercised. The aforesaid order is challenged by the petitioner.
CAUSE – Petitioner has challenged the order of High Court wherein it declined to exercise power under section 482 Cr.PC.
ARGUMENTS – Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relevant facts have not been taken into consideration. The husband of the respondent no.2 himself has given a complaint against her and she is absconding. She is none other than the domestic help of Smt. Asha, who made a similar attempt against the petitioner’s son. There are number of proceedings pending between the parties.
The learned Magistrate and the Court of Sessions have not applied their mind to the facts governing and therefore the Order passed by the High Court has to be set aside.
Learned public prosecutor appearing for respondent no.1 submitted that the case has been registered on the directions of the Court. It is further submitted that the investigation reveals that the respondent no.2 was indeed a house help of Smt. Asha. The complaint was closed on finding that it was motivated having given at the instance of Smt. Asha. A protest petition was filed by the respondent no.2 and a direction was issued to the Court to take cognizance and proceed further. The investigation made thus far would reveal the serious dispute between the respondent no.2’s employer Smt. Asha on the one side and the petitioner on the other side.
ISSUE – Whether the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside.
DECISION – The Supreme Court held that it is a fit case where the case registered in is required to be quashed. The Judicial Magistrate is required to be conscious of the consequences while passing an Order under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.PC. It being a judicial order, relevant materials are expected to be taken note of.
Similarly, the Court of Sessions shall consider the materials available on record while dealing with the protest petition on a final report filed. For the reasons known to her the respondent no.2 has not chosen to appear before the Supreme Court either to deny or contradict the averments made.
Investigation revealed that she was indeed the house help of Smt. Asha. If there was a dispute between the two families, one cannot expect respondent no.2 to go to the place of father-in-law of the petitioner who allegedly taken sides with the petitioner as against Smt. Asha and that too from a different village, for the purpose of collecting the fodder.
The petitioner is an aged man and a similar complaint given by the employer of respondent no.2 against his son was found to be not true. Even in the present case, the investigation made thus far revealed that the complaint is motivated. It is obviously an abuse of process of law.
In the view of the aforesaid, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the proceedings arising from FIR.