Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court order rejecting a quashing application under sections 376 and 506 IPC, holding that continuation of proceedings was unjustified as parties had mutually divorced and settled disputes amicably.
The impugned order dated 11th October 2022 passed by the High Court and FIR No. 474 of 2019 were quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024 INSC 38
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 174 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.10842 of 2022)
MOHD. JULFUKAR …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
…RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.01.13 12:35:51 IST Reason:
short, “IPC”) came to be rejected.
1
appeal are as under:-
4.1 The appellant was in relationship with the complainant.
It appears that the relationship of the appellant with the complainant was against the wishes of the parents but they decided to reside together.
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.
4.4 It appears that thereafter the appellant and the complainant resided together for a considerable time.
2
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.
3
16th January 2023 before this Court. In the said affidavit, she has stated thus:-
“1. That I am Respondent No.2 in the abovementioned Special Leave Petition and as such is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and competent to swear this affidavit.
4
petitioner further.
have resolved their disputes and decided to lead their lives peacefully.
the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be in
5
the interest of justice.
the High Court so also the FIR No. 474 of 2019 are quashed
and set aside.
..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)
..............................J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI; JANUARY 09, 2024
6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings under Sections 376 and 506 IPC should be quashed after the parties have mutually obtained a divorce and resolved their dispute amicably.
Whether continuing the prosecution would be prejudicial to the interest of the complainant who does not want to proceed further.
Whether the continuation of proceedings in these circumstances would be in the interest of justice.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
MOHD. JULFUKAR
THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
B.R. GAVAI
SANDEEP MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
