REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1251 OF 2014
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.7104 of 2013)
SANTOSH BAKSHI … APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA,J.
Dated;JUNE 30, 2014.
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,
Page 2
2
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
Page 3
3
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
Page 4
4
lodging false complaint at Ludhaina as well as at Jalandhar and
requested the authorities to take legal action against them u/s
182 IPC. The SHO, P.S. Div. No.1 by note dated 1st May, 2009
forwarded the said affidavit. The deposition of respondent no.3
was recorded by Executive Magistrate, Tehsil, District Ludhiana.
However, the deposition is not on record.
11. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar by letter
dated 24th April, 2009 referring to the application filed by the
appellant intimated that for the purpose of investigation when
the appellant was summoned she has narrated the matter in the
same way as mentioned in her application. He further intimated
that statement of Vivek Bakshi s/o Kewal Krishan Bakshi has got
recorded. In his statement, Vivek Bakshi has stated that the
application which has been moved against him by his sister-inlaw
is wrong and he has no dispute with her. Moreover, she is
intentionally harassing him and leveling allegation of dowry
against his parents and others, which is absolutely incorrect
and wrong. It was further mentioned in the letter that the said
case being related to a family property partition, the Police
cannot interfere with the same and that a case is pending in
Court and the allegations leveled by the complainant (appellant
herein) regarding the misappropriation of dowry articles etc.
are not proved. The dowry articles and jewellery of the
appellant were lying as it is in her house and there is no truth
in the application. It was recommended to file the application.
On the basis of such letter, after advise of District Attorney
(Legal), approval of the SSP, Jalandhar was taken and Calendra
Page 5
5
u/s 182 IPC was prepared and was ordered to be presented before
the Court.
12. The respondents have not disputed that the complainantappellant
earlier submitted complaint dated 17th January, 2009 to
the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar (now known as
Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar). In the said complaint,
allegation of continuous harassment, beating and maltreatment of
the appellant for demand of dowry with specific allegations with
date, time etc. were made. It is alleged that the Police
Authorities kept the complaint pending for long and failed to
register any FIR. In the meantime, the appellant filed an
application under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act, 2005. In the said case, the in-laws of appellant arrived at
a comprise with the appellant and agreed to allow the appellant
to live in her matrimonial house at Ludhiana. Further, they also
gave assurance that the appellant will not be meted out with any
maltreatment and they will keep appellant in nice manner.
13. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the
respondents. The reading of the statement made by the parties
clarifies the following facts:
(a) That the appellant was thrown out of her matrimonial
house at the instance of one or other persons among
the in-laws.
(b) Assurance given by in-laws that they will not maltreat
the appellant makes a presumption that one or other
member of the family maltreated the appellant.
Page 6
6
(c) Assurance given by the in-laws they will keep the
appellant in nice manner in future, suggests that the
appellant was not treated in nice manner by one or
other member of the family.
14. The complaint, if made, by any woman alleging offence under
the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
committed by any member of the family, the matter is to be
looked upon seriously. The Police without proper verification
and investigation cannot submit a report that no case is made
out. The Investigating Agency is required to make proper enquiry
not only from the members of the family but also from
neighbours, friends and others. After such enquiry, the
Investigating Agency may form a definite opinion and file report
but it is for the Court to decide finally whether to take
cognizance for any offence under any of the provisions of the
Act.
15. Section 182 IPC relates to false information, with intent
to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of
another person and reads as follows:
“182. False information, with intent to
cause public servant to use his lawful power to
the injury of another person.- Whoever gives to
any public servant any information which he
knows or believes to be false, intending thereby
to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby cause, such public servant-
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant
ought not to do or omit if the true state of
facts respecting which such information is given
were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant
to the injury or annoyance of any person,
Page 7
7
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to six
months, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both.”
16. To make out a case u/s 182 IPC, the following ingredients
are to be proved:
(i) An information was given by a person to a public
servant.
(ii) The information was given by a person who knows or
believes such statement to be false.
(iii)Such information was given with an intention to cause
or knowing it to be likely to cause (a) such public
servant to do not to do anything if the true state of
facts respecting which such information is given were
known by him, or (b) to use the lawful power of such
public servant to the injury or annoyance of any
person,
17. In the present case, the investigating agency has failed to
show that the appellant has given information which she was
knowing and believing to be false. In the investigation report
it has not been reported that the appellant was knowing that the
information given is false but still gave the information to
harass the respondent No.3.
18. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 having failed to make out a case u/s
182 IPC, we are of the opinion that it was a fit case to quash
the proceedings u/s 182 IPC. The High Court failed to notice the
relevant facts and mechanically dismissed the application u/s
482 Cr.PC.
Page 8
8
19. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the impugned order
dated 12th July, 2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh, quash the complaint filed by respondent
no.3 u/s 182 IPC, the order of approval granted by the SSP in
November, 2009 and proceeding if initiated against the
appellant.
20. The appeal is allowed. No costs.
…………………………………………J.
(SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA)
…………………………………………J.
(KURIAN JOSEPH)
NEW DELHI,
JUNE 30, 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment