.jpg)
INTRODUCTION:
This case revolves around strained relationship, promise of marriage, and allegations of fraud between the parties involved. The instant case was brought before the Honorable Supreme Court following the judgment of Honorable the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. Let’s dive into the details of this intriguing case to know more.
COURT: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India CORAM: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Pankaj Mithal DATE: 3rd January, 2024 APPELLANT: Ajeet Singh RESPONDENTS: State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. |
FACTS:
At the request of the third respondent, on 27th May, 2015, a First Information Report[3] (herein after referred to as FIR) was filed at a police station against the appellant under Section 376[4] and Section 506[5] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (herein after referred to as I.P.C). In reply to this, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench for quashing the FIR. However, the High Court, through its judgment on 7th December, 2016, declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226[6] of the Constitution of India, 1950. As per the complaint, the third respondent’s daughter was studying in Lucknow for banking coaching she met the appellant who was running IIT coaching classes in Delhi. They started loving each other and the appellant even promised to marry her. But when the third respondent approached the appellant’s father and brother with the marriage proposal they rejected it. After this, due to the pressure exerted by the victim, the appellant supposedly got a fake marriage certificate from Arya Samaj Mandir. The complaint further mentions that the appellant fraudulently maintained a physical relationship with the victim as well as the appellant’s relatives threatened him. Finally, on 22nd April, 2015 the appellant left the victim at the third respondent’s residence in Sitapur . According to the honorable High Court order dated 18th October,2016, the police were restrained from taking the appellant into custody , subject to the condition that the appellant must join the investigation at 10 a.m. on 6th June, 2016 at police station Sitapur, District Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh and thereafter as and when required. Shri Abhay Nath Tripathi filed an affidavit stating that he recorded statements from both the victim and the appellant, which revealed that they had solemnized their marriage, but the appellant allegedly did not fulfill his matrimonial obligations. The appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955[7] so that he can escape the criminal proceedings. In spite of the charge sheet being drafted by the concerned officer, it was not filed to make possible the dispute’s resolution. The said officer’s successor filed a counter-affidavit to the writ petition supporting the registration of the FIR.
JUDGMENT AND ITS ANALYSIS:
1. Affidavit filed by Shri Abhay Nath Tripathi, Circle Officer, supporting marriage certificate and pending petition:
Shri Abhay Nath Tripathi, Circle Officer, Kaisarbagh, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh filed an affidavit on behalf of the State Government stating the marriage certificate provided with the writ petition was authentic. He also mentioned that the appellant’s petition for restitution of conjugal rights was still unresolved. He mentioned that he had recorded statements from both the appellant and the victim. Based on his account, the victim's main complaint was that the appellant was not fulfilling their marital responsibilities.
2. Subsequent counter affidavit filed by the successor of Circle Officer:
The successor of Circle Officer filed a subsequent counter affidavit, it was contended that the marriage ceremony between the appellant and the victim was a sham made only to enable the appellant to establish sexual relations with the victim.
3. Annexure P-2: Legal notice dated 1st May, 2015 issued by Shri Aftab Ahmed, Advocate, on behalf of the victim:
In the legal notice, the victim is stated to be the wife of the appellant. The Circle Officer, in their counter affidavit, did not challenge the genuineness of Annexure P-2. In the paragraphs 1 and 2 of the notice[8] and according to paragraphs 3 and 4, the victim stated that the appellant actually kicked her out of their matrimonial home because his father demanded a hefty sum of Rs. 50 lakhs. The victim even sent a notice to the appellant, asking him to arrange for her "Vidai" (departure).
4. Appellant then filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights against the victim:
Within five days of dispatching the notice, on 6th May, 2015 , the appellant filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955[9] against the victim.
5. Allegations in the FIR lodged at the instance of the third respondent:
The first allegation is that the appellant maintained a physical relationship with the victim by deceitfully pledging marriage to her. It was stated by him that a fake marriage certificate was crafted by the appellant from Arya Samaj Mandir to pressurize the victim. It is alleged that the appellant left the victim in her house on 22nd April, 2015 and never returned to take her back.
6. A copy of the statement of the victim recorded on 23rd November,2016 by an officer of Police Station Naka, Lucknow is placed on record:
The victim stated that the appellant compelled her to engage in a sexual relationship with him in a hotel in Delhi on 4th December, 2014. Subsequently, the appellant persisted in engaging in a physical relationship with the victim. She even stated that on 16th February, 2015, the appellant took her to Arya Samaj Mandir and solemnized the marriage where no other witnesses were present. She stated that after this, they stayed in a hotel till 19th February, 2015. In March, 2015, she stayed with the appellant for three to four days and from the end of April, the appellant stopped attending to her phone calls.
It is very much clear from the statements of the victim itself that the relationship between the victim and the appellant was a relationship with consent which culminated in the marriage.
7. Legal notice (on behalf of the appellant):
The fact of the marriage was acknowledged in the legal notice. It appears that the statements mentioned in the FIR are not enough to proceed against the appellant.
8. A case was made out for quashing the FIR:
Clause (5) of the decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors.v. Bhajan Lal & Ors.1[10] , hence, FIR needs to be quashed.
CONCLUSION:
Wrapping up, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that there exists adequate evidence to substantiate the respondent’s claim. The relationship between the alleged victim and the respondent culminated in the solemnization of marriage, thereby raising significant doubts regarding the validity of the allegations outlined in the FIR. In consideration of these circumstances, a compelling case has been established for the quashing of the FIR.
AUTHORS’ VIEWS:
In the views of the authors, Honorable Supreme Court’s judgment is really accurate, since it is evident that the assertions in the First Information Report were not enough to hold up a case against the appellant. Therefore, by conferring with the principles enshrined in clause(5) of the decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal &Ors[11], it is justified to conclude that the FIR should be quashed.
This case makes readers to understand that if the allegations made in the First Information Report are not clear and valid. The Honorable Court has the authority to quash such FIR.
REFERENCES
[1] Third-year law student at Babu Banarasi Das University, Lucknow.
[2] Third-year law student at Babu Banarasi Das University, Lucknow.
[3] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, §.154, Act No. 2, Act of Parliament 1974(India).
[4] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, §.376, Act No. 45, Act of Parliament 1860(India).
[5] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, §.506, Act No. 45, Act of Parliament 1860(India).
[6] INDIA CONST. art. 226.
[7] TheHindu Marriage Act, 1955, §.9, Act No. 25, Act of Parliament 1955(India).
[8] I want to let Sri Satyendra Singh know that on February 16, 2001, your son Ajeet Singh willingly got married to my client XXXX (name masked) at Arya Samaj Mandir, following Vedic rites and ceremonies.
[9] TheHindu Marriage Act, 1955, §.9, Act No. 25, Act of Parliament 1955(India).
[10] State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
[11] Ibid.
Comments