No FIR in Cross complaint be quashed on the ground that FIR in earlier complaint was pending. From the record, as well as the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also the Amicus Curiae, we are of the opinion that in the facts of the present case, the finding recorded by the High Court that the report (FIR no. 218) of the respondents no.2 and 3 (petitioners before the High Court) was not registered immediately, cannot be justified, primarily because the matter relating to FIR No.217 of 2006 was under investigation and it was not for the High Court to have substituted its own opinion in 5 this regard by holding that the FIR no. 217 of 2006 was filed as a counter blast, specially when it was registered a day earlier than FIR no. 218 of 2006 and the matter was admittedly still under investigation. In our considered opinion, quashing the FIR No.217 of 2006, solely on this ground is wholly unreasonable and cannot be justified in law. It is also noteworthy, that while deciding the matter, the High Court has not considered the Injury Report of the appellant­Ram Kishan dated 22.07.2006, which was submitted by the Medical Officer of the Medical and Health Department of the Government of Rajasthan, nor have the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant (though recorded) been considered in the Order quashing the FIR no. 217 of 2006.

 No FIR in Cross complaint  be quashed on the ground that FIR in earlier complaint was pending. 

From   the   record,   as   well   as   the   submission   made   by   the learned Counsel for the parties and also the Amicus Curiae, we are of the opinion that in the facts of the present case, the finding recorded by the High Court that the report (FIR no. 218) of the respondents no.2 and 3 (petitioners before the High Court) was not registered immediately, cannot be justified, primarily because the matter relating to FIR No.217 of 2006 was under investigation and it was not for the High Court to have substituted its own opinion in 5 this regard by holding that the FIR no. 217 of 2006 was filed as a counter blast, specially when it was registered a day earlier than FIR no. 218 of 2006 and the matter was admittedly still under investigation. In our considered opinion, quashing the FIR No.217 of 2006, solely on this ground is wholly unreasonable and cannot be justified in law. It is also noteworthy, that while deciding the matter, the High Court has not considered the Injury Report of the appellant­Ram Kishan dated 22.07.2006, which was submitted by the Medical Officer of the Medical and Health Department of the Government of Rajasthan, nor have the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant (though recorded) been considered in the Order quashing the FIR no. 217 of 2006.  

1

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.393  OF 2021

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [CRL] NO. 3705 OF 2015]

RAM KISHAN       …..APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ……RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

Leave granted.

2. This   appeal   has   been   filed   challenging   the   Order   of   the

Rajasthan High Court whereby the First Information Report (for

short ‘FIR’) No.217 of 2006 lodged by the appellant against the

respondent no.3 under Sections 332 and 353 of the Indian Penal

Code (for short ‘IPC’), has been quashed in a petition under Section

482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) filed by the

respondents no. 2 and 3. 

2

3. Briefly stated, the facts of this case are that the appellant, who

is a Police Constable, along with a Sub Inspector of Police and

another Constable, were checking the vehicles passing by on the

road in the evening on 21.07.2006, when at about 09:15 pm, one

motorcycle was stopped, and when the rider (Deepak Gupta) was

asked   about   the   papers   of   the   vehicle,   instead   of   showing   the

papers, on the pretext of talking over mobile phone, he fled away

and returned after about 20 minutes along with two ladies in one

Maruti Car, one of whom was the respondent no.3­Ms. Ratna Gupta

and the other was respondent no.2­Ms. Usha Gupta. The said Ms.

Ratna Gupta, who was herself an Inspector in Rajasthan Police,

alighted   from   the   car   and   uttered   caste   related   abuses   to   the

appellant, and asked that what power did the appellant have to stop

the   motorcycle   despite   her   (Ratna   Gupta’s)   name   having   been

taken.  She then caught hold of the collar of the appellant, slapped

and beat him, and thereafter fled away from the place. An FIR

No.217 of 2006 of the said incident was lodged by the appellant on

21.07.2006 at 09:45 pm.

3

4. Cross  FIR   No.   218   of   2006  was  lodged   on  22.07.2006   by

Deepak Gupta alleging that he was stopped by the appellant in the

late   evening   on   21.07.2006,   and   that   the   appellant   asked   for

Rs.100/­ (Rupees One Hundred) and when the same was not given,

the appellant assaulted the said Deepak Gupta.  It was also alleged

that the appellant behaved indecently with the respondent no.2 Ms.

Usha Gupta (who was also with him on motorcycle) and tore her

clothes. 

5. With   regard   to   FIR   No.218   of   2006,   after   a   detailed

investigation, a Final Report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by

the   Police   on   30.12.2006,   which   matter   is   pending   before   the

concerned Magistrate.  

6. The   earlier   FIR   No.   217   of   2006   was   challenged   by   the

respondents no. 2 and 3 before the Rajasthan High Court, which

petition has been allowed and the said FIR has been quashed.

Challenging the said Order dated 23.01.2015 of the High Court,

this Special Leave Petition has been filed. 

4

7. Shri Rishi Matoliya, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf

of the appellant and Dr. Manish Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate

has appeared for the State­respondent no.1.  Respondents no.2 and

3 (Ms. Usha Gupta and Ms. Ratna Gupta) appeared in person.  By

an earlier Order dated 24.07.2018, this Court had recorded that the

respondent no.3 (who appeared in person) was not in a position to

make her submissions properly and therefore, Shri Vijay Hansaria,

learned Senior Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae. 

8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties as well as

Amicus Curiae and Respondents no.2 and 3, at length and have

carefully perused the relevant documents. 

9. From   the   record,   as   well   as   the   submission   made   by   the

learned Counsel for the parties and also the Amicus Curiae, we are

of the opinion that in the facts of the present case, the finding

recorded by the High Court that the report (FIR no. 218) of the

respondents no.2 and 3 (petitioners before the High Court) was not

registered immediately, cannot be justified, primarily because the

matter relating to FIR No.217 of 2006 was under investigation and

it was not for the High Court to have substituted its own opinion in

5

this regard by holding that the FIR no. 217 of 2006 was filed as a

counter blast, specially when it was registered a day earlier than

FIR no. 218 of 2006 and the matter was admittedly still under

investigation. In our considered opinion, quashing the FIR No.217

of 2006, solely on this ground is wholly unreasonable and cannot

be justified in law. It is also noteworthy, that while deciding the

matter, the High Court has not considered the Injury Report of the

appellant­Ram Kishan dated 22.07.2006, which was submitted by

the Medical Officer of the Medical and Health Department of the

Government of Rajasthan, nor have the submissions advanced on

behalf of the appellant (though recorded) been considered in the

Order quashing the FIR no. 217 of 2006.  

10. Considering the fact that the matter relating to FIR No. 217 of

2006 was under investigation and merely on the assumption that

the   FIR   of   Deepak   Gupta   (wrongly   mentioned   as   that   of   the

respondents no.2 and 3) was not registered immediately and also

keeping in view the Final Report submitted in the FIR No.218 of

2006   was   not   taken   into   consideration   by   the   Rajasthan   High

Court, we are of the opinion that the Rajasthan High Court has

erred in quashing the FIR No.217 of 2006. 

6

11. Accordingly, we set aside the Order dated 23.01.2015 passed

by the Rajasthan High Court in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1144

of 2008 (Usha Gupta & anr vs State of Rajasthan & anr.) and direct

that the police shall submit its report under section 173 Cr.P.C.

after carrying out a complete and proper investigation relating to

FIR No.217 of 2006.  Since, the matter has been pending for about

a decade and a half, we direct that the investigation be concluded

as expeditiously as possible. 

With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands allowed.

……………………………..CJI.

                                              [S.A. BOBDE]

……………………………..J.

                                        [L. NAGESWARA RAO]

……………………………..J.

                                        [VINEET SARAN]

      NEW DELHI;

      APRIL 09, 2021.