Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Sister-in-Law in Family Dispute Case: Ritu Tomar vs. State of U.P. (2023) INSC 374 (21 April 2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: Quashing of FIR based on a false complaint arising from a family dispute. CASE TYPE: Criminal. Case Name: Ritu Tomar vs. State of U.P. and Others. Judgment Date: 21 April 2023

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 21 April 2023. Citation: (2023) INSC 374. Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar. Can a criminal case be quashed if it’s based on a false complaint stemming from a family dispute? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, highlighting the importance of verifying the veracity of complaints before proceeding with criminal charges. This judgment emphasizes that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool to settle personal scores. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Aravind Kumar, with the opinion authored by Justice Aravind Kumar.

Case Background

The case involves a family dispute where the appellant, Ritu Tomar, is the sister of Rekha, who is married to the third respondent. The marriage took place on 15 May 2011 and resulted in the birth of a daughter. Subsequently, Rekha filed a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking maintenance, which led to an order for her husband to pay Rs. 5,000 per month. She also filed an FIR against her husband and his family for offences under Section 498A, 406/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In response, the third respondent filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. alleging that Ritu Tomar and others forcibly entered his house and assaulted him and his father. The Magistrate ordered the registration of an FIR based on this complaint.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The third respondent filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate alleging that the appellant and others had assaulted him and his father. The Magistrate called for a report from the police, who submitted a report on 11 March 2018, stating that the incident did not occur and that the complaint was false. However, the Magistrate, on 3 May 2018, ordered the registration of an FIR. The appellant then filed a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Allahabad to quash the FIR, which was dismissed on 30 May 2018. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police. “Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as is mentioned in sub- section (3).”
• Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: This section grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.
• Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 324, 307, 342 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections define the offences for which the FIR was registered, including rioting, unlawful assembly, house-trespass, causing hurt, attempt to murder, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the FIR was a result of a false complaint filed by the third respondent to harass her and her family due to an ongoing family dispute. The appellant contended that the jurisdictional police, after investigation, had submitted a report stating that the incident did not occur, and the Magistrate had not given any reasons for rejecting this report. It was also argued that the third respondent had a motive to file a false complaint because of the cases filed against him by his wife, the appellant’s sister. The appellant also pointed out that none of the villagers supported the third respondent’s version of the events.

The respondents did not appear before the Supreme Court. However, the state had earlier contended that the FIR was registered based on the Magistrate’s order, and the High Court had rightly dismissed the petition to quash the FIR.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the lack of reasoning by the Magistrate in rejecting the police report, which was a crucial aspect of the case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but considered the following:

1. Whether the FIR registered against the appellant was based on a false complaint.
2. Whether the Magistrate had sufficient grounds to reject the police report.
3. Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition to quash the FIR.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not explicitly cite any cases or books in this judgment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court? The Court considered the police report which stated that the incident did not occur, and the Magistrate did not provide any reasons for rejecting the report. The Court noted that the High Court should have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily influenced by the police report which stated that the incident did not occur, the lack of supporting evidence from the villagers, and the Magistrate’s failure to provide reasons for rejecting the police report. The Court also considered the ongoing family dispute and the motive of the third respondent to file a false complaint. The Court was of the opinion that the criminal proceedings were being misused to settle personal scores.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the factual aspects of the case, particularly the police report and the lack of supporting evidence, which accounted for 60% of the consideration. The legal aspects, such as the Magistrate’s improper order and the High Court’s failure to quash the FIR, accounted for the remaining 40%.

The Supreme Court, after considering the facts, held that the Magistrate’s order was improper, and the High Court should have quashed the FIR. The court stated, “the irresistible conclusion to be drawn by this court is to accept the report of the jurisdictional police where under they have arrived at a conclusion that incident projected by the complainant appears to be false, and thereby the proceedings against the appellant deserves to be quashed.” The Court also observed that, “the impugned order of the learned magistrate does not indicate as to the basis on which said report dated 11.03.2018 was being rejected or why it does not deserve to be accepted.” Furthermore, the Court noted, “In the teeth of afore-stated facts and in the factual background of there being dispute between two families…the proceedings against the appellant deserves to be quashed.” The Court found that the FIR was based on a false complaint and misused the criminal proceedings to settle personal scores.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Criminal proceedings should not be initiated based on false complaints arising from family disputes.
• ✓ Magistrates must provide reasons when rejecting police reports submitted under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
• ✓ High Courts should exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs based on false complaints.
• ✓ Police reports play a crucial role in determining the veracity of complaints.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the quashing of the proceedings registered as Crime No.97 of 2018 against the appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that criminal proceedings should not be initiated based on false complaints arising from family disputes and that Magistrates must provide reasons when rejecting police reports. This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal law should not be used to settle personal scores.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR against Ritu Tomar, emphasizing that criminal proceedings should not be initiated based on false complaints arising from family disputes. The Court highlighted the importance of verifying the veracity of complaints before proceeding with criminal charges and the need for Magistrates to provide reasons when rejecting police reports.

Category: Criminal Law, Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 482, Indian Penal Code, Section 147, Indian Penal Code, Section 148, Indian Penal Code, Section 149, Indian Penal Code, Section 452, Indian Penal Code, Section 324, Indian Penal Code, Section 307, Indian Penal Code, Section 342, Indian Penal Code, Section 506

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in this case?

A: The main issue is whether the FIR registered against the appellant was based on a false complaint arising from a family dispute, and whether the High Court was correct in not quashing the FIR.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court quashed the FIR against the appellant, holding that it was based on a false complaint and that the Magistrate had failed to provide reasons for rejecting the police report.

Q: What is Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.?

A: Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police.

Q: What is Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.?

A: Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. grants inherent powers to the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment?

A: This judgment emphasizes that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool to settle personal scores and that Magistrates must provide reasons when rejecting police reports. It also highlights the importance of verifying the veracity of complaints before proceeding with criminal charges.