The Supreme Court observed that a judicial magistrate is required to be aware of the consequences when making an order under Article 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
As this is a court order, the relevant documents should be taken into account, said the court consisting of Judges Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Messrs. Sundresh while revoking a registered FIR pursuant to an order issued by a magistrate.
In this case, an FIR alleging a rape offense was filed against the applicant. Before the High Court, he argued that the entirety of the complaint was directed against the petitioner, a pensioner, by his sister-in-law removed from the family dispute. That he is not even the resident of this region and a similar complaint was filed by her against her son which was closed after investigation as false and substantiated. That he was in fact attending the court of First Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat at the time of the alleged incident and a number of ongoing disputes between the parties. The High Court refused to quash the FIR, finding that as the facts were disputed, the discretion under section 482 CrPC could not be exercised.
Taking note of the facts, the judiciary declared that this is an appropriate case where the recorded crime should be quashed. The court said:
“The judicial magistrate is required to be aware of the consequences when adopting an order under article 156 (3) of the Cr.PC. As this is a court order, the relevant documents must be taken into account. Likewise, the Court of Sessions must take into account the documents available in the file while dealing with the protest request on a filed final report. “
The court noted that the complainant did not appear before it to deny or contradict the claims made.
“The investigation reveals that she was indeed Smt. Asha’s housekeeper. If there is a dispute between the two families, Respondent # 2 cannot be expected to come to the place of the applicant’s father-in-law who allegedly took sides with the petitioner against Smt. Asha and also from a different village, with the aim of collecting fodder. The petitioner is an elderly man and a similar complaint filed by the employer of Respondent # 2 against his son was found to be Even in this case, the investigation to date shows that the complaint is substantiated, clearly an abuse of rights.“, added the court by canceling the FIR.
Case Name: Suresh Kankra v State of Uttar Pradesh
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 35
Case n ° and Date: CrA 52 DE 2022 | January 7, 2022
Coram: Judges Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh
Counsel: Sr. Adv Vinod Prasad for the appellant, AAG Siddharth Dharmadhikari
Click here to read / download the order